Full text of "The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church"

See other formats

THE COUNCIL OF
CHALCEDON AND THE
ARMENIAN CHURCH

KAREKIN SARKISSIAN

Prelate, Armenian Apostolic Church
of America

A PUBLICATION OF
The Armenian Church Prelacy

NEW YORK

Copyright© 1965 by Archbishop Karekin Sirkissian
Preface to the Second Edition Copyright © 1975
by The Armenian Apostolic Church of America
Ail rights reserved
Printed in U.S.A.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Sarkissian, Karekin, Bp.

The Council of Chalccdon and the Armenian Church.

Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.

1. Armenian Church.
451. I. Title.
BXt26.2,S25 1975

2. Chalccdon, Council of,

281’. 62

75-28381

To the

beloved memory of His Holiness
ZAREH I

Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia
{1915-1963)

In humble recognition of his sacrifice for the
Armenian Church and Nation

CONTENTS

| FOREWORD

| MAPS |

I Armenia in the fourth and fifth centuries
H Christianity in Syria and Mesopotamia in the fifth and sixth
centuries

I IM'kUUUCflOTH

i The Problem and its Significance
n The Traditional View
in Recent Critical Approach

|i. CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON 1

if Chalcedon
D

I Some Significant Aspects of the Council c

II Some Aspects of Post-Chalcedonian Histo

| 2. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (1): |

I he Political tntuatior^^

| 3- THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (2): |

l he ecclesiastical Situation lielore the council ot
1 The First Four Centuries
n The First Three Decades of the Fourth Centui

Ephesus

| 4. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (3>:|

^!^TcaesTasUca^!tu«To!^cwccr^nf^Counal of Ephesus and the
Council of Chalcedon

page

xiv

xv
xvii

| j. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (4) |

^^jnr^Eraesmnca^ituatjoi^it^Tn^CounciR^Cnalcedon 148

^^^^DO^miNA^ACKG^UND] 174

Ijj^THE^^ECTION^OF^HE^COUNCIL^F^CHALCEDO^ 196

Vll

CONTENTS

viii

|^PILOGU^] 214

^DDTONALNOrasJ 219

| MTOM iiViiTMM 1 237

I BIBLIOGRAf’kldAL ABfallEVlAYlUMS I 238

| INDEX OF PROPER NAMES | 255

IlMbMk W ijUflETTSI 261

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The Prelacy ot the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, East-
ern Diocese, considers it important to publish a second edition
of the scholarly work The Council oj Chalcedon and the Armenian
Church, by Archbishop Karekin Sarkissian, Prelate of our Church.

The book, originally published in London in 1965 by the So-
ciety for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), has been out
of print for the last four years. We are very grateful to the SPCK
for assigning the publication rights to us.

The Council oj Chalcedoti and the Armenian Church is widely
known in British theological circles and in Europe. It has been
reviewed in many scholarly 7 periodicals in more than eight lan-
guages and is included in bibliographies of reference works on
Armenia, on the Council of Chalcedon, and on Christology.

Here in the United States, it deserves to be more widely circu-
lated, for it has much to contribute, not only 7 in Armenological
circles but also in theological seminaries and universities, to a bet-
ter understanding of the historical and doctrinal place ol the Ar-
menian Church in Christendom. For a variety of reasons, theo-
logical and historical, the Armenian Church took the position of
rejecting the Council of Chalcedon. What were the significant
stages in the process of that rejection? Where can one find accu-
rate documentation of the issues? Archbishop Sarkissian deals
with these questions ably and with scholarly thoroughness. His
Grace also states very clearly 7 the present-day relevance of the
theme ot his study, both in his own Foreword and in the Epilogue,
“Looking Forward: Some Conclusions and Considerations.”

We would like to draw the reader’s attention to two other ar-
ticles which His Grace has published on the same issue: “The
Ecumenical Problem in Eastern Christendom” ( Ecumenical
Review, the official quarterly of the World Council ot Churches,

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

Geneva, Switzerland, Vol. XII, No. 4, July i960, pp. 436-454);
and “The Doctrine of the Person of Christ in the Armenian
Church” ( Greek Orthodox Theological Review, published by t-he
Holy Cross Theological Seminary, Brookline, Massachusetts,
Vol. X, No. 2, Winter 1964-65, pp. 108-121).

We recommend this volume and the articles just mentioned to
everyone concerned with ecumenism, with Christianity, with
the Armenian Church, and Armenian studies in general, in the
sincere hope that this publication will serve the ecumenical cause
and provide a better understanding of the Armenian Church.

Executive Council

Armenian Apostolic Church of America,

Eastern Diocese

New York, New York
August 27 , 1973

FOREWORD

This book was written five years ago as a thesis for the degree of
B. Litt. in the University of Oxford.

The text has undergone no substantial change since then. The
only addition has been the last chapter, in which I have tried to
draw up certain conclusions with an ecumenical perspective and L
have indicated some general lines for future studies concerning
the historical and theological situations subsequent to and closely
related to the period and the problems under study in this treatise.

I need not emphasize the importance of a study treating the
early christological controversies which have had a permanent
effect on the Christian Churches, particularly in the East. In fact,
the clash between the two main traditions of christological
thinking in the early Church, usually described as the “ Alexandrian
and Antiochene Schools”, interwoven as it was with other fac-
tors of personal, ecclesiastical, and political nature, finally resulted
after the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451) and particularly in the
first half of the sixth century in the formation of two distinct, sep-
arate groups of Churches within the fold of Eastern Christendom:
the Chalcedonian Churches under the protection of the Byzantine
Empire, and the anti-Chalcedonian Churches within or outside the
Byzantine Empire with a strong tendency towards an independent
status of life. The latter group of Churches, mistakenly and mis-
leadingly often depicted as “Monophysite Churches” — i.e. the
Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian Churches — have con-
tinuously maintained firm their doctrinal position throughout
their history. The Churches of Byzantine tradition and origin
have recognized them for many centuries as heretical or schis-
matic Churches. But thanks to sincere and serious attempts made
in mutual understanding and in an atmosphere free from polem-
ical heat and historical prejudices many of the misunderstand-

Xll

FOREWORD

ings have fallen away. Owing to the present ecumenical spirit
that breathes in the Christian Churches all over the world, these
two groups of Churches have come to recognize their unity in
faith in the very depth of their christological confession. Fears of
heresy or alienation from Christian truth that lay behind the
minds of the leading theological figures of these Churches have
disappeared in the course of their long experience of Christian
faith and life in history. Political and other related factors have
disappeared equally. Recently, some positive signs are emerging
with regard to the possibility of mutual understanding and re-
covery of the lost sense and state of unity or communion. Thus,
the study of the Council of Chalcedon has become an item of
genuine interest at the present time. My sincere belief is that any
objective and deep-searching inquiry into the history and theology
of Chalcedon and post-Chalcedon may be a help towards a
deeper understanding of the most essential area of our common
heritage of Christian faith: christology.

It is with this desire in heart and with this view in mind that I
present this work to its readers, who will find a fuller presentation
of the nature and the scope of this study in the Introduction that
follows.

Before concluding this brief word of opening, I should like to
express my feelings of joy and gratitude in thanking many of my
friends who in one way or another have helped towards the pre-
paration and publication of this book. First of all, I should say a
special word of thankful recognition in memory of my Super-
visor, the Reverend C. S. C. Williams, the late Chaplain of Mer-
ton College, Oxford, whose constant support and help have meant
so much to me and have contributed so greatly to the improvement
of my work. My hearty thanks are due also to the Right Rev-
erend F. J. Taylor, Principal of WyclifFe Hall (now the Lord
Bishop of Sheffield), who provided me with all the facilities for
quiet study in WyclifFe Hall where I had the pleasure of sharing
in the life of Anglican theological students for two years. I take
much pleasure in thanking my examiners, the Reverend Dr H.
Chadwick, Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford University

FOREWORD

Xlll

and Dr C. J. F. Dowsett, Lecturer in Armenian in the School of
Oriental and African Studies of London University, who care-
fully read the text and made valuable suggestions at the same time
encouraging me to publish the work. Finally, it is with deep
satisfactionandappreciationthatlshouldliketo express my thanks
to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation as well as to the Harold
Buxton Trust for their generous financial contribution towards
the publication of the book.

Karekin Sarkissian

Antelias, Lebanon,
as November 1964.

KEY

f^'Njhe tine of ftoition (387-90)

I Armenia in the fourth and fifth centuries.

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

ASIA MINOR

Metitenei

Armenia A-_

Maipherkat Van
^ Amid # * /« Stcrt

A Mt Ararat

SEA

Kaisoum

'aamosata

OSRHOENE

BtlT-ARBAYE <
•Mardin

ADIABENE

.Karkn of Beit Silk

•Tellmahre

BEIT- GARMAT (GARAMEE)

r SYRIA

•Hama
fCE piphania)
•Homs (Ernes sa)

LCircessium

DamasSis^

Pella

PEREA

Anliar'#.
(Peeoz Scfia W

«r Bagdad

s »— Ctesiphon
S«leucia>v ~

(Beit Ardaahip)
Babylcm^^

\DsadSea

CHRISTIANITY in SYRIA

AND MESOPOTAMIA INTHE

5 ® and 6 ® CENTURIES

^ Euphrates

CHALDEA

0 fit Lapat J

uBondesapop)/

• Karka^of Ledan

^ J^SUSIANA

fAhwaz Beit Huzaye

/ KUZISTAN

5®and 6® CENTURIES C* p % S lf N *

II Christianity in Syria and Mesopotamia in the fifth and sixth centuries.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

1. I have attempted to give a fairly literal translation of the
Armenian texts, particularly the theological texts. Round brackets
( ) are added to words or expressions either to give an explan-
ation or to make the meaning of the word more explicit. Square
brackets [ ] contain words which are not found in the text but are
added by myself to complete the form of the phrase in English
translation or to make it clearer and more expressive.

2. In translating Armenian words I have followed the
Hubschmann-Meillet system. The list of Armenian letters with
their Roman equivalents is given at the end of the Additional
Notes and before the Bibliographical Abbreviations (p. 237).

3. The Bibliography is arranged in alphabetical order. In the
text and footnotes I have usually given the references by citing
the name of the author and an abbreviation of the title. The full
name and title as well as other necessary details are given in the
list of Biblio graphical Abbreviations.

4. Two maps are given on pp. xii and xiii to illustrate the his-
torical situation of the Armenian Church in the fourth and fifth
centuries and the geographical position of the Syro-Persian
Church in the fifth and sixth centuries. The first is reproduced
from the Historical Atlas of Armenia (2nd edition, Beirut, 1956),
and the second from R. Duval’s La Literature Syriaque, Some
details are not included in the reproduction.

xvii

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND

THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

There is no doubt that the Council of Chalcedon is of crucial im-
portance in the history of the Armenian Church. It is now gen-
erally recognized that the attitude of the Armenian Church to
the Council .of Chalcedon determined not only its doctrinal posi-
tion within the whole Christian world, but also, and at the same
time, immensely affected the political life of the Armenian people.
It is equally true that it played a prominent part in the shaping of
the character and orientation of Armenian theological literature.
In fact, the whole course of Armenian Church history, partic-
ularly the period between the fifth and twelfth centuries, is
deeply affected by the position of the Armenian Church in re-
lation to the Council of Chalcedon.

The extent to which it affected the life of the Armenian people
may be understood from the expression of H. Gregoire, the fam-
ous byzantinist: in his own words, “la querelle des deux natures
en Jesus-Christ [Chalcedon] tut sa tragedie ”. 1 Looked at from
the political angle, the history of Armenia itself has been a tragedy
all through the centuries. Every aspect of her life, the geographical
situation of the country, her cultural tradition, and then, from the
beginning of the fourth century, her adherence as a nation to
Christianity — all these go to make up the tragic story of Armenia.
It is a commonplace now to use the image of a ship tossed by the
waves of the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab,
Seljuk, Tatar, and Turkish invasions . 2 In this wider context,

1 Der-Nersessian, Arm. Byz. Emp., preface, p. xix.

2 The words of Gibbon are as true to-day as ever : “ From the earliest period to
the present hour, Armenia has been the theatre of perpetual war ” (Roman Empire,
vol. v, p. 169).

2 COUNCIL OF CMALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

then, the expression of H. Gregoire seems exaggerated ; yet there
is some truth in it worthy of serious historical consideration for
the Byzantine emperors regarded the rejection by the Armenians
of the Council of Chalcedon as a sign, if not of hostility, at least
of a diminishing loyalty to the imperial throne . 1 Because, on the
one hand, of the close association of Armenian history with
the Byzantine Empire for so many centuries, and because, on the
other, of the great influence of religion on the politics of the time,
the doctrinal attitude of the Armenian Church had immeasurable
consequences not only for the Armenian people, but for the whole
Byzantine empire as well.

On the other side, in the sphere of ecclesiastical history, it
determined the subsequent relations of the Armenian Church
with the Syrian, Byzantine, Georgian, and, to some extent,
even the Roman Churches . 2 An adequate understanding of
the historical and doctrinal position of the Armenian Church with
regard to the Council of Chalcedon is therefore of the utmost
importance for a study of the ecumenical aspect of Aunenian
Church history.

Again, an understanding of this position is essential if we are to
appreciate the theological literature of the Armenian Church,
particularly in the period of seven centuries referred to ; for this
doctrinal position made a decisive impact on the character of
Armenian literature, which has been primarily concerned with the
doctrine of Christ’s Person and with all that that involves; Ar-
menian theologians have been mainly occupied with criticizing
the Chalcedonian christology, significantly stressing the real unity

1 This may easily be seen in their many attempts made between the sixth and
twelfth centuries to make Chalcedon accepted by the Armenians. (See Der-
Nersessian, Arm. Byz. Emp., chs. i and 2; Laurent, Arm. Byz. Isl ; Goubert,
Byzance, ch. 7, pp. 191 ff; for a brief survey see Pargoire, £glise Byzantine, pp. 182-
5 ; cf Neale, Eastern Church, pp. 1080-3.

2 For the relationship with the Syrian Churches see Ter-Minaseanf, Am.
Kirche; for the Byzantine Church Ter-Mik‘elean, Arm. Kirche ; Tekeyan, Cotttro-
verses christologiques (only for the twelfth century); for the Georgian Church,
Akinean, Kiurrion; Tamarati, Egiise Giorgienne, pp. 228-48; for the Roman
Church Galanus, Conciliationis (entirely biased and uncritical).

INTRODUCTION

of Christ’s natures, and, at the same time, strenuously avoiding
any idea of confusion or incompleteness therein . 1

1 The theological literature in its present state, as explored and made available
to us through modern scientific research, can testify to this effect in many ways.
Thus, the Book of Letters — Girk ‘ Tlt l oc — and the Patristic floritegium known and
characterized as the Seal of Faith — Knik' Havatoy — both of them compiled and
used in these centuries, are of supreme importance for the study of Armenian
theological literature and for the understanding of the doctrinal position of the
Armenian Church.

The Book of Letters contains official letters and short treatises on the christo-
logical problem; most of these bear the signatures of Armenian Catholicoi and
theologians of high standing; some are documents of ecclesiastical councils.
Scholars have shown a very keen interest in them. A positive sign of that interest
is seen in the remarkable study and translation of the first six documents of the
collection by M. Tallon; see hi sLivre desLettm.

The Seal of Faith is a collection of fragments of Church Fathers — including the
Armenian divines — having as their central theme the doctrine of Christ’s person.
It was compiled in the seventh century and used in the course of the controversy
with the Chalcedonians. It was discovered and published by K, Ter-MkrtJ'ean
with a most valuable Introduction in Ejmiacin, 1914. See for its importance and
for the identification of the Greek Patristic fragments, Lebon, Citations Patris-
tiques.

Secondly, the Armenian literary and religious history of the sixth, seventh, and
eighth centuries, is, to a large extent, a history of doctrinal controversies, dissen-
sions, conflicts, negotiations, all of them being centred mainly on the Council of
Chalcedon. Names as Petros Siwneci, Vrt'anes K‘ert‘ol, Yovhan Mayragomefi,
T'eodoros K‘rt‘enavor, Komitas Kat'olikos, Xosrovik T'argmanic *, Stephanos Siwneci,
Yovhan Ojnefi — to mention only the important authors and theologians of these
three centuries — can be studied and set in their right places in the doctrinal history
of the Armenian Church only when they are seen in the context of the Chalce-
donian problem and understood accordingly.

Many articles by N. Akinean in Handes Amsorya , by Galust Ter-Mkrtc‘ean and
Karapet Ter-Mkrtc‘ean in Ararat have revealed the great importance of the relig-
ious literature of these centuries which had been overlooked for so long as being
to some extent the “ dark ages” of Armenian literature.

It is worth noting also that a great many theologians of later centuries, such as
Xosrov Anjevafi (10th cent.), Anania Narekafi (10th cent.). Polos Taronefi (12th
cent.), the most distinguished of all, Nerses Snorhali (12th cent.), Nerses Lambronafi
(12th cent.), Step’anos Orbelean (14th cent.), Grigor Tat‘eva(i(t 5th cent.), and many
others, would have been involved in the same problem as if it had been a perm-
anent one in Armenian Church history and theology.

See a compendium of this post-Chalcedonian Armenian theological literature in
Jugie, Theologia Monophysitarum, vol. v, pp. 480-8. Jugie in his exposition of the
Monophysite christology has given a large place to the Armenian theologians,
using the Latin translations made by the Mekhitarist Fathers. See pp. 500-42.

4 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

There can be not the least doubt, then, that this problem is
crucial in Armenian Church history; and an attempt to under-
stand it may shed light on other matters also — problems con-
cerning the personalities and literature oflater periods.

Furthermore, the question receives a higher importance from
the fact that the Armenian Church had never been directly in-
volved in the Chalcedonian controversies, either in their previous,
Nestorian, phase, or in their subsequent, Monophysite, phase. 1
The fifth century was a fortunate period for the Armenian Church
and nation, the “ Golden Age”, as it is usually called, of Armenian
history : to this period belongs the downfall of the Arsacid King-
dom (428), a political crisis which followed another important
event — the partition of Armenia between Persia and Byzantium 2
{387/390?); then there were grave threats to the Christian faith —
the persecution by the Mazdaean Persians which was strongly re-
sisted by the Armenians in the battle of Awarayr 3 (451) ; these and
other new challenges were the crucial problems of this time for
the Armenians. It was indeed, a time of great tension and cul-
minated in great achievements in the literary, religious, missionary,
and educational spheres, namely the preservation of Christianity,
the invention of the Armenian alphabet, the translation of the
Holy Scriptures, the liturgical literature and the Church Fathers,
the remarkable flowering of Armenian literature, and the cre-
ation of national solidarity. 4

1 The only instance of any relation with the theological discussions taking place
in the outside world is the correspondence between (a) Acacius of Melitene and
Sahak, Catholicos of the Armenians — three letters — and ( b ) Proclus of Constanti-
nople and Sahak Catholicos — two letters. (See them in Book of Letters, p p. 1-2 1 ;
cfTallon, Litre desLettres, pp. 21-77.)

2 See Aslan, Etudes Hisloriques, p. 207; Grousset, Histoire d’Armenie, pp. 163-84 ;
Manandean, Critical History, pp, 232-43 ; Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. i, p. 94;
Demougeot, Empire Remain, pp. 1 12-13; Christensen, Iran Sassanide, p. 233-4;
Baynes, Rome and Armenia, pp. 642-3 ; Goubert, Ceorgie, pp. r 19-27.

3 The whole story is related by a fifth century historian, Elide. See Hist, of
Vardan', cf Grousset, Histoire d'Armenie, pp. 187-213 ; Christensen, Iran Sassanide,
pp. 282-8.

4 For a brief account of the fifth-century situation of the Armenian people and
Church see below, pp. 68-72.

INTRODUCTION

No wonder at all, then, that the Armenians did not participate
in the life of the Church outside the boundaries of their country !
They had no representative in the Council of Chalcedon itself.
There is no evidence either for any invitation to them from the
emperor or the bishop of Constantinople . 1

Here we have a situation where the well-known personal
feelings, ecclesiastical rivalries, political orientation, compe-
tition for supremacy, resentment, with all the heat of contro-
versy that goes with them — all these did not affect the doctrinal
position reached. And, if it is assumed that these factors played a
considerable part in the Chalcedonian and Monophysite contro-
versies and had an important effect on the attitude of both sides,
here we have, then, a world quite free from such confusing
factors, a world in which, therefore, we can find a different stand-
point — perhaps a better one — from which to view the Chalce-
donian question more closely. This different angle may help us to
understand the historical and doctrinal place of Chalcedon in the
life of the Eastern Church.

This is the reason why so often so many church historians have
been at a loss to find any real theological justification for the posi-
tion of the Armenian Church ; not being able to find any serious
reason for the Armenian rejection of the Council of Chalcedon,
they have let their imagination run riot, and have offered, albeit
quite sincerely, endless explanations for it.

What was and still is needed is a realization of the particular
situation of the Armenian Church in the period in which the
Chalcedonian problem arose for the Armenian Church author-
ities and theologians. We shall not be able to understand the pos-
ition of the Armenian Church if we always think in terms of what
happened and what was thought in Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, or Jerusalem! We have to realize, first of all, by a careful

1 This, however, does not mean to us as it has meant to many others, that they
were unaware of what was happening in the outside world, or that they were
completely cut off from the life of the Church in the Byzantine empire, and,
therefore, could not see clearly the doctrinal problems of the fifth century which
came to their consideration later. This interpretation is contrary to the evidence at
hand, as it will be shown later.

6 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

reading of the history and literature of the Armenian Church
prior to the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, what kind of
situation existed in Armenia, particularly in the theological sphere.

This seems to be the proper standpoint from which to tackle
the question, which may now be formulated as follows: How,
when, and why did the Armenian Church, formally and officially, for
the fast time in history, reject the Council of Chalcedon?

Thus, having put the question directly, if briefly, and having
hinted at its high importance in Armenian church history and, to
some extent, in the history of the Chalcedonian problem as a
whole, we turn now to the existing literature on the subject to see
what we can find there which may help towards an understanding
of the position of the Armenian Church. 1

II. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW

In an attempt to present, in a very general survey and in chrono-
logical terms, the various views that were taken of the problem,
especially in the Western world before the twentieth century, the
most important work to start with is undoubtedly the famous and
voluminous work of a well-known Roman Catholic missionary,
orientalist, and theologian, Clement Galanus: Conciliationis
Ecclesiae Armeniae cum Romatia. In the historical part of his work,
volume i, Galanus refers to the rejection of the Council of Chalce-
don several times, but his essential point may be found in chapter io :

Nierses Ascdarachensis, primus patriarcha fuit, qui sanctam Syn-
odum Chalcedonensem detestatus, inter Armenam et Universalem
Ecclesiam apartum schisma molitus sit, etenim post annum
Christianum 500 Condliabulo Thevinensi decern Episcoporum in
Armenia Persarum Regis, qui Christianorum divisionem, ad Armen-
ian! sibi omnimode subiciendam, vehementer exoptabat, unam in
Christo natura, pleresque eidem sacre Synodo Chalcedonensi
repugnantes constitutiones stabiluit. 2

1 We shall give preference to the literature in foreign languages at the same
time taking into account that part of the Armenian literature which has influenced
the former in one way or another.

2 Galanus, Conciliationis, vol. i, p. 86.

INTRODUCTION

A little further on he continues:

Pervaserat itaque in Armeniam temporibus istis nefandissima
Acephalorum 1 haeresis, belua inquam ilia sine capite ; quae pluribus
tamen in Oriente prodierat armata capitibus, inter se quidem
pugnantibus, sed in suscipiendis sacrilegi Dioscori partibus post
infelicem eius interitum, atque in Chalcedonensi sacra Synodo
oppugnanda, iniquissime foederatis. 2

Le Quien, who has been recognized as a great expert on the
history of the Eastern Churches for his imposing work, Oriens
Christianus, is inclined to put the date of the rejection as late as
554, i.e. 103 years after the Council of Chalcedon. Having asserted
that the Armenians maintained the orthodox faith in communion
with the Universal Church before and during the fifth century, he
says:

Verum insequente saeculo a Catholica fide et communione Armeni
defecerunt, pro summo quod erga Nestorianam impietatem con-
ceperantodio, atque Euty chi anum errorem amplexi Chalcedonensem
synodum abjecerunt. 3

Then follows an account of the Chalcedonian problem in Armen-
ian Church history as given by an anonymous author of the
eighth century; 4 in this, the possibility of an earlier rejection is
excluded. Then he concludes:

At vero ex his quae leguntur ad calcem Narrationis, Armenorum
haeresis initium ardessendum omnino est ab anno Christi 554. Ibi

1 The Armenian text has “Eutyches and Dioscorus” ( Ewtik'eay ew Deoskorosin)
for this word. Apparently this is a false identification in the author’s mind. But it
is clear that for Galanus those who came to Armenia at this time were followers
of Eutyches and Dioscorus, representatives of the extreme monophysite branch.

2 Galanus, Conciliation is, vol. i, p. 87 ; cf pp. 92-3 .

3 Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. i, col. 1357-8.

4 The author of the pro-Chalcedonian work known as Narratio de Rebus

Armeniae or simply See it in Migne, P.G. t. 127, col. 885-900 and t.

132, col. 1237-53 — two separate editions. A critical edition followed by a mas-
terly commentary was recently made by Prof. Gerard Garitte. See Garitte,
Narratio.

8 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

namque fertur Armenos, etsi a S. Gregori Doctoris sui aliorumque
Patrum traditionibus utcumque desciverant, de Chalcedonensis
tamen synodi Fide nihil quidquam, imo nec de duabus Christi
naturis, in dubium revocasse usque ad annum 103 . . , quo Tibenen-
sem suam synodum celebrarunt. Qui certe annus 103 a synodo
Chalcedonensi, seu Christi 451 ipsissimus est Christi 554. 1

C‘amc‘ean, who, with his massive work. History of the Armenians
— for so many years regarded as the standard history of Armenia
— exerted such a great influence on Armenian historians in the
nineteenth century and also not an unimportant one on foreign
historians, has provided a general pattern of interpretation often
shared in their own ways and sometimes with slight variations by
Armenian scholars and foreign historians on Eastern Christianity.
He says that until the year 490,

the news of the confusing reports of the opponents of the holy
Council of Chalcedon had not yet reached Armenia; and even if
some rumours had come, and a letter from the Dioscorians, they
could not have any effect, because the whole nation was suffering
tribulation on account of the great persecutions at the hand of the
fire-worshippers (i.e. the Mazdaean Persians); they did not have
time to give heed to such rumours or to take action accordingly.
But when those persecutions ceased for a while in Armenia, confus-
ing news was spread about the holy Council of Chalcedon in the
times of the reign of Emperor Zeno and in the days of the Catho-
licate of Babgen, some forty years after that Council. 2

Like the Dioscorians or Eutychians, the Nestorians also came to
spread their own ideas about the Council of Chalcedon, seeing in
it the vindication of the doctrine of Nestorius. So, both Euty-
chians and Nestorians were claiming, though for different and
opposite reasons, that the Council of Chalcedon had reaffirmed
the Nestorian christology.

And when all these allegations reached Armenia, the Armenian
bishops not knowing the truth in what had happened, were per-
plexed, because they did not hear good things from either side about

1 Le Quien, Oriens Christianas, vol. i, col. 1360.

2 £‘amc‘ean, History, vol. ii, bk. lii, p. 223.

INTRODUCTION

the holy Council of Chalcedon ; but what they were told was bad ;
and because the bishops of Armenia Major were not present at
the Council itself, they could not be aware of what was meant in the
decrees of that Council. In those days some brought to Armenia the
copy of the edict of Zeno. Catholicos Babgen, having read it and
seen that many bishops had signed it, he also consented to it as rep-
resenting the sound doctrine of faith; because, in fact, the doctrine of
that letter, taken in itself, was orthodox and in conformity with the
doctrine of Chalcedon.

. . . And, therefore, as Babgen, Catholicos of the Armenians, had
heard many calumnies against the holy Council of Chalcedon, when
he saw that the edict with the signatures of many, supposedly re-
jected that Council, he also wished to reject it. But he did not dare to
do that alone. So he convened a synod of bishops in the cathedral in
the new city, which is Ejmiacin in Valarsapat, a city in the plain. 1

He also invited the Catholicos of the Georgians, Gabriel, with his

bishops, and the Catholicos of Alowank, 2 and some from parts of

Byzantine Armenia. This was in 491.

In this assembly, first, they anathematized the Nestorians, Barsauma
and Akak the Persian, with their adherents, and their false teaching;
in addition, they anathematized the false teaching of the Euty-
chians. And, then, having read the copy of Zeno’s edict which is
called Henoticon {ivarriKov) or Henaticon, they consented to it, and
in accordance with the mind of that edict also explicitly rejected the
holy Council of Chalcedon supposing that, first, according to the
calumnies of the Nestorians and Eutychians, that Council had
accepted the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his supporters,
and, secondly, that it had divided Christ into two persons ( dems=
npovioTTov) and two sons according to the conception of Nestorius.

... In the same year that the council of Valarsapat was held, Anas-
tasius became emperor; and seeing that there was great confusion in
the East over the Council of Chalcedon prohibited all discussion of
the matter, either for or against it. This being heard by the Armen-
ians, they put aside altogether that holy council, saying: if the

1 Ibid., pp. 224-5.

2 The Caucasian Albanians in the north-east of Armenia.

10 COUNCIL OF CHALCBDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Greeks themselves do not accept that Council which they convened,
why should we accept it ?

This, then, was the first time that the Armenians rejected the holy
Council of Chalcedon; and they did it not because they knew what
that Council involved, but because they had no accurate infor-
mation about it. 1

J. M. Neale, the widely recognized English authority on the
Eastern Churches, has made some important remarks concerning
the christological position of the Armenian Church, Thus, after a
careful scrutiny of the doctrinal documents of the Armenian liter-
ature, he fully recognizes the orthodoxy of the Armenian formu-
lation of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, based, as it is, on
the famous pfa <f>vais formula; but he blames them only “for
obstinacy and schismatical perverseness in retaining their term
when they were, or might have been, convinced that Chalcedon
was a Catholic Synod, and that its meaning agreed with their
own ”. 2 But his account of the rejection of the Council of Chal-
cedon by the Armenian Church does not take us very far beyond
what we have seen above. He says :

The troubles of the times (i.e. the Mazdaean persecutions) prevented
the Armenians from taking any part in the fourth Oecumenical
Council. Surrounded as they were on all sides by Nestorian heretics,
it was natural that they should regard with the greatest jealousy any
teaching which seemed to condemn those who contended for the
One Person of our Lord. Their nearest neighbours, the Syrian
Bishops, misrepresented the Council; and unhappily, the Armenian
language facilitated the misapprehension; one word only being em-
ployed to express the two senses of Nature and Person.

. . . The Armenians, then, learnt that at Chalcedon Two Persons had
been recognized in our Lord, and they soon heard that the succeeding
Emperors, Zeno and Anastasius, rejected the Council. What wonder

1 C‘am6‘ean, History, vol. ii, bk. iii, pp. 225-6. It must be said that Issaverdens,
although he offered no contribution of his own to the understanding of the prob-
lem, nevertheless became very influential to Western scholars through his Armenia
and the Armenians. In fact, it was he who made available to others C‘amc‘ean’s
views which he, in fact, summarized. (See Armenia, pp . 90-7 .)

1 Neale, Eastern Church, p. 1 090.

INTRODUCTION

that the Catholicos, Papchen II, with a Synod of his Bishops,
followed their example? The crafty Syro-Jacobites fomented the
dispute ; and by their means the addition of Peter the Fuller to the
Trisagion was unhappily received in Armenia. The schism was thus
begun in ignorance. 1

Ed. Dulaurier, the distinguished French armenologist of the
nineteenth century, in his Histoire, Dogtnes, Traditions etLiturgie de
I’Eglise Arminienne Orientate, asserts that the Armenian rejection
of the Council of Chalcedon can be explained on linguistic
grounds. Thus, he claims that the Armenian word womti, which
is used in the translation of Leo’s Tome in reference to each
nature of Christ, denotes a person; therefore, the Two Natures
were understood as Two Persons. And, in addition, the Armenian
language being “peu travaillde” at that time, could not render the
abstract notions associated with such words as rjivois, vrroaraais,
ovoia. He then turns from the theological to the historical aspect
of the problem:

Le patriarche armenien Papguen, dans une reunion particuliere
d £veques de sa narion en 491, anathematisa de nouveau Ies nes-
toriens Barsouma et Acace, ainsi que les adeptes d’Eutych£s et se
declara contre le concile de Chalcedoine, mais sans entrer dans
l’examen des decisions de ce concile. Ainsi se fut une simple confusion
de mots qui amena la separation des deux Eglises grecque et
armenienne. 2

Arsak Ter-MiFelean, an ardent advocate of Armenian ortho-
doxy, with an immensely wide knowledge of the original Ar-
menian sources, suggests that the Council of Chalcedon was
condemned by the Catholicos Babgen as early as 488 : He (Babgen)

convened the holy council of Valarsapat in 488 with the assistance of
the Catholicoi of Alowank and Georgians, Sowphalese and Gabriel;
he refuted and destroyed the doctrine of the Chalcedonians, gave
strict orders to the faithful to have no communication with them,
neither to fraternize nor to worship with them, but only to trade
with them as with the Jews. The many bishops of the three countries
declared themselves bound by signature and oath to stand fast for

1 Ibid., p. 1080. 1 Dulaurier, £glise Arminienne, p. 21.

12 COUNCIL OF CHAICEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

ever in that covenant. Accordingly, that covenant was preserved in
the Catholicosate of the Armenians, in remembrance of this great
achievement. It appears, they also decided here to add the

0 OTa.vpto 6 eis (or Xaf‘e(ar=“ who wast crucified”) to the Trisagion
in order to affirm their doctrine. 1

Finally, Toumebize, at the close of the last century, and just at
the opening of the twentieth, seems to sum up these different
views in his well-known work, Histoire Politique et Religieuse de
I’Arminie, although he does not take any step forward of his own
in the discussion , 2 Following the footsteps of Galanus, C‘amc‘ean,
and Dulaurier, he reviews the political and linguistic reasons for
the rejection, in addition to such factors as ignorance and mis-
guidance . 3 He accepts his sources uncritically and therefore re-
constructs the historical events as follows:

Bapgen est le premier patriarche armenien qui se soit montre hostile
au dogme des deux natures, defrni a Chalcedoine. Au synode de
Vagharschabat (491), il approuva l’Henoticon de Zenon, favorable
au monophysisme.

Quelques uns des representants de 1 ’f glise armenienne l’entrain-
aient vers le schisme; pourtant, elle n’etait point encore schismatique.
Ce fut Nerses Aschtaraguetsi qui la separa de l’Eglise universelle,
dans un synode tenu a Tovin, par l’ordre de Kavadh, roi de Perse,
vers 527 (?). Au reste, si les historiens ne s’accordent pas sur l’annee
oil fut condemne le concile de Chalcedoine, ils sont presque unanimes
\ designer Nerses Aschtaraguetsi comme l’auteur de cette condem-
nation. 4

So far we have dealt with the different views in chronological
order. Let us now summarize them . 5

1 Ter-Mik‘elean, Arm. Kirche (Arm. ed.), pp. 91-8.

1 It must be said that later, after new researches and discoveries, he changed his
view to some extent. (See Armenie, col. 302-3.)

3 See Tournebize, Histoire, pp. 86-90.

4 Ibid., pp. 90-1.

5 We attach some footnotes to the condensed views listed below in order to
show to what extent these latter have been appropriated by Western scholars and
how widely they have echoed in text-books of Church History, in sketches of
Armenian history, in works on the Eastern Churches, in articles in the dictionaries
and periodicals.

introduction

1 (a). That the Council of Chalcedon was rejected in the synod

held by Catholicos Nerses after the first quarter of the sixth
century. 1

(/>). That the Council of Chalcedon was rejected in the synod
held by Catholicos Babgen in the last quarter of the fifth
century. 2

2 (a). That they accepted the doctrine of Dioscorus, and specially

of Eutyches. 3

(b). That they have always condemned the christology of
Eutyches by anathematizing him as a heretic. 4

3 (a). That not being themselves present at the Council, they

were deceived and misled by others. 5
(b). That they were represented in the Council and accepted
its decisions immediately after the Council, but later shifted
from their position and moved over to the opposite side. 6

4 (a). That it was under the pressure of the Persians that they

were brought to reject the Council, this being a means to

1 A. Fortescue, Eastern Churches , p. 413 ; Toumebize, Armenie, col. 303 ; Malan,
St Gregory, pp. 29-32; Balgy, Doctr. Cath. inter Arm., pp. 18-19; Vailhe, Eglise
Armenienne, p. 209; Hefele, Candles, t. ii, part 2, pp. 1077-8.

2 Duchesne, Church History, vol. iii. p. 391; Kidd, Church History, vol. in,
pp. 424-3; Kidd, Eastern Christendom, p. 428; Hore, Orthodox Church, p. 273;
Adeney, Eastern Churches, p. 544; Appleyard, Eastern Churches, p. 33; Dyer,
Armenian Church, p. 1 899 ; Williams, Armenians, p. 164b ; Macler, Armenia, p. 804a ;
Petit, Armenie, col. 1896; cf col. 1928; King, Rites Eastern Christendom, pp. 330-1 ;
Janin, Eg Uses Orientates, p. 335; Bardy, Egtises de Perse et d'Armenie, p. 336; cf p.
Sir-

3 Rycaut, Gr.Arm. Churches, pp. 411-14; Riley (see Dowling, Armenian Church,
pp. 43-4); Gibbon, RomanEmpire, vol. v, p. 168.

4 A. Fortescue, Eastern Churches, p. 411; Adeney, Eastern Churches, p. 546;
Dyer, Armenian Church, p. 1899; Brightman (See Dowling, Armenian Church,
p. 44) ; Malan, St. Gregory, pp. 31-2; Tchiraz, L’Eglise Armhiienne, p. 327; Simon,
Chretiens Orientaux, pp. 139-40, where he calls the “Eutychianism” of the Ar-
menian Church “ imaginaire

5 K. Fortescue, Armenian Church, p. 21; Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. i, p. 7;
Adeney, Eastern Churches, pp. 543-4; Williams, Armenians, p. 164b.

6 Balgy, Doctr. Cath. inter Arm., ch. 3; A. Fortescue, Eastern Churches, p. 411;
King, Rites Eastern Christendom, p, 330.

14 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

make them stand in opposition to the Byzantine empire,
the rival of the Persian Kingdom. 1
(6). That they rejected the Council in order to conform their
attitude to the ecclesiastical policy of the Byzantine em-
perors of the time. 2

5. That they were not able to understand the true meaning of the
formulas used in the Tome of Leo and the Chalcedonian De-
finition; for linguistic reasons it was not possible to produce an
accurate Armenian translation. 3

6. Finally, that they confused the Chalcedonian doctrine with
Nestorian christology, and, therefore, became opposed to it
through their struggle with Nestorianism. 4

III. RECENT CRITICAL APPROACH

This situation at the end of the nineteenth century can only be
described as unsatisfactory, confusing, and misleading. Obviously
it could not long remain acceptable to modern historians and
theologians with their new methods of scientific research.

The publication of the Book of Letters (Girk‘ T‘h‘oc) in the first
year of this century was the start of a new approach and pro-
vided the basis of a new interpretation, which became almost the
established one, although scholars differed in their attitude to the
documents concerned.

This collection of letters made available to scholars, among

1 Kidd, Eastern Christendom , pp. 431-2; Greenslade, Schism, pp. 68-9.

2 K. Fortescue, Armenian Church, p. 27; Petit, Armenie, col. 1896; Duchesne,
Separated Churches , p. 36; Bardy, Eglises de Perse et d’ Armenie, p. 336. Another in-
terpretation closely linked with this is that they rejected the Council of Chalce-
don because of the rising nationalism in Armenia. (See A. Fortescue, Eastern
Churches, p. 4x2; Laurent, Arm. Byz. IsL, pp. 137-9; Tcheraz, Eglise Armenienne,
pp. 327-8 ; Der-Nersessian, Arm. Byz. Emp., p. 32 ; Greenslade, Schism, pp. 6S-9.)

3 K. Fortescue, Armenian Church, p. 21; Dyer, Armenian Church, p. 1899;
Neve, Armenie Chretienne, pp. 26-7; Dowling, Armenian Church, pp. 61-2;
Tournebize, Armenie, col. 302-3; A. Fortescue, Eastern Churches, p. 412; Hore,
Orthodox Church, p. 273; Kidd, Church History, vol. iii, p. 425; Kidd, Eastern
Christendom, p. 43 1 .

4 Dyer, Armenian Church, p. 1899.

INTRODUCTION

many other most valuable texts, a group of documents entirely
concerned with the relationship of the Armenian Church with
the Syrian Churches. 1

These documents could not escape the attention ot Armenian
scholars, not only because of their extreme importance for the
history of the Armenian Church’s relations with the neighbouring
Syrian Churches, but also, and in particular, because they were
of immense significance for the understanding of the doctrinal
position of the Armenian Church.

Thus, E. Ter-Minaseanc, taking advantage of this publication,
made a stimulating study of the documents referred to in his well-
known book. 2 His views are quite familiar, because Western
scholars have had direct access to his book, and we need not pre-
sent them here. 3

But it must be said that even before Ter-Minaseanc, K. Ter-
Mkrtc'ean, a pioneer in the scientific investigation of the Armen-
ian patristic literature, had already challenged the traditional view
and opened the way for a new interpretation. Therefore it would
be valuable to present his views, especially as these latter have not
yet found expression in any foreign language.

From 1896 onwards he was engaged in the study of the Armen-
ian christological literature, and, in the beginning, he had accep-
ted the traditional view, i.e. that the Armenian Church made its
first decision on the Council of Chalcedon

not in 491 in the synod of Valarsapat held by Babgen, as it is accepted
among us following C‘amC‘ean, but in the middle of the sixth cen-
tury in the synod held in Dowin by Nerses II Astarakeci. 4

Two years later, in an article with the characteristic title: “Bab-
gen Catholicos and the First Participation of the Armenian
Church in the Doctrinal Controversies”, in which the documents

1 See B.L., pp. 41-75.

* See Ter-Minaseanc, Arm. Kirche.

3 Op. cit., ch. 2, pp. 29-36 (Arm. ed., pp. 63-83).

4 Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Christ’s Nature , p. 157; cf his Paultkiarter, pp. 55-6 (Arm.
ed., pp. 83-4).

l6 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

above-mentioned were used, 1 he radically changed his opinion.
Here, after examining the historical circumstances and the evi-
dence provided by the documents, and having established the
date of the Council of Babgen as 506, not 491, he says:

Our final conclusion from all these inquiries is that the doctrinal
controversies raised in the General Church became a vital problem
for the Armenian Church for the first time when Nestorianism was
recognized as the true faith by the State of Persia, and its adherents
began to try to convert all the Christians subject to the Persian King-
dom to this faith ; at this point, a great council was held in Dowin,
in 506, under the presidency of Cathohcos Babgen and with the
participation of the Georgians, Albanians, and Orthodox Persian
Christians, where Nestorianism, which was accepted by the Persians,
was condemned with its principal representatives, Acacius, Bar-
sauma, Babai, etc.; the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno was re-
cognized as the orthodox faith, and, therefore, the Council of
Chalcedon was not officially condemned, but tacitly considered as
an outcome of a veiled Nestorianism, and consequently was to be
despised by the orthodox Christians. 2

Later researches and discoveries in the tradition of the Armenian
patristic literature meant a considerable revision of his approach
to the problem. Thus, when dealing with the works ascribed to
Yovhan Mandakuni, a fifth-century author, he touches the same
problem of the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, and,
basing his arguments mainly on a christological treatise of Yovhan
Mandakuni, he maintains that even before the council of 506, i.e.
earlier than the decision of Catholicos Babgen, in fact, immediately
after 484, Mandakuni had already opposed the Council of Chalce-
don. 3

Finally, in his most valuable introduction of the edition of the
Seal of Faith, he reaffirms this last view. He says, again, that

1 Before the publication of the Book of Letters in 1901, he had received the
copies of the two documents in which the attitude of the Armenian Church to
the Council of Chalcedon was discussed. He published them in Ararat and wrote
an introduction to them. (See First Participation, pp. 4.3 1-6.)

1 Ter-Mkrt£‘ean, First Participation, p. 436; cf his Misunderstandings, p. 832.

J SeeTer-Mkrt£‘ean, Mandakuni, pp. 89-94.

INTRODUCTION

Mandakuni must be regarded as the first churchman in authority
to have rejected the Council of Chalcedon. The occasion which
caused that rejection was most probably the promulgation of
Zeno’s Henoticon. 1

This line was taken by many Armenian scholars later, and it
soon became the predominant view. Ormanean, in his widely
consulted History of the Armenian Nation ( Azgapatum ) combined
this view with his own conclusions and made it a widespread and
generally accepted interpretation of the problem, It is stated
briefly in his popular book, The Church of Armenia:

The synod of Armenian, Georgian, and Caspio-AIbanian bishops,
which assembled at Dwin (506) under the presidency of Babgen,
officially proclaimed the profession of faith of the Council of Ephesus
and rejected every tiling that was Nestorian or savoured of Nestor-
ianism, including the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Far, indeed,
from adopting the doctrine of Eutyches, his name, together with
those of Arius, of Macedon, and of Nestorius, was officially con-
demned. Such was the first declaration of the Armenian Church with
regard to the Council of Chalcedon. 2

This view was challenged very categorically by V. Hacuni
who, anxious to see the Armenian Church in communion with
the Roman Church, went as far as to say that the Council of
Chalcedon was condemned neither in the fifth century nor in the
middle of the sixth. Opposition to it started in the last quarter of
the sixth century and the condemnation took place at the be-
ginning of the seventh. He declared that the documents of the
sixth century which mentioned the condemnation of the Council
of Chalcedon were either forged or altered in the later cen-
turies. 3 However, there remained in Armenia a group of people
who were faithful to the “ Catholic Faith”. Those who separated
themselves off acted in ignorance. They were incapable of under-

' See Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Seal of Faith, Intr., pp. lix-bdi.

2 Ormanean, Armenian Church, p. 27. See also Nersoyan, Doctrinal Position, p. 6.

3 Hacuni, Important Problems, seepp. 358-63, 369-70, 376-8, 386, 389-416.

4 We must note that this way of interpreting the problem, i.e. by dating the
rejection of the Council of Chalcedon as late as possible, is a common tendency

18 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Finally, we have to mention the article of V. Inglizean in Das
Konzil von Chalkedon in which he maintains that the first condem-
nation of the Council of Chalcedon was instigated by the Syrian
Monophysitcs and is recorded in the second letter of Babgen,
written soon after the council of $o 6 . The Armenians acted under
the directives of Simon Beth-Arsani, the leader of the Mono-
physite Syrians. And, secondly, they were influenced by the Heno-
ticon of Zeno :

Die feindselige Einstellung zu Chalkedon, die in dicsem zweiten Briefe
Babgens zum Ausdruck kommt, beruht also keineswegs etwa auf der
Kenntnis der Konzilsbeschlusse, sondem lediglich auf den durch
Simeon von Beth-Arsham vermittelten monophysitischen Schriften
und dem Henotikon. Dadurch wurde in Armenien der Boden berei-
tet fur jene emeute Verwerfung des Konzils von Chalkedon, die
nach 50 Jahren auf Betreiben wiederum eines monophysitischen
Syrers stattfmden sollte. 1

This is the situation to-day. Let us, again, resume the main
points of these recent studies :

1. There was no participation of the Armenian Church in the
Council of Chalcedon.

2. In the first decade of the sixth century 7 the Armenian Church
came officially to face Chalcedon as a problem and to deal with it
officially.

among the Armenian Uniate and some Roman Catholic scholars. It is inspired
by their general assumption that the Armenians remained in communion with
the “Catholic Faith” for long centuries. In order to strengthen their argument
that the Armenian Uniate Church is the true descendant of the “Ancient Ortho-
dox and Catholic” Armenian Church, they try to show that even after the
“schism” there remained a “Catholic” element in the Armenian Church. That
element is found expressed in the works of several Armenian Church Fathers and
theologians as understood and expounded by them. (Some examples of this
approach can be found in Balgy, Doctr. Cath. inter Arm.; A. Fortescue, Eastern
Churches; Weber, Kath. Kirche; Tournebize, Histoire; and the prototype of all,
Galanus, Conciliationis.)

1 Inglizean, Arm. Kirche, p. 370. See on the same problem also Ananean,
Don. 1 in Document, pp. 63-9 > cf Garitte, Narratio, pp. 152-3.

introduction

3. The same problem was dealt with again in the middle of the
sixth century.

4. The Henoticon of Zeno was an important factor in the shaping
of the Armenian attitude.

5. The impact of Nestorianism was of decisive importance for
the Armenian position.

In spite of all these basic facts on which the great majority of
scholars would agree to-day, the problem is still open to discus-
sion, not only because the scholars do not agree on every point, 1
but also, and especially, because there are aspects of it still to be
studied and investigated more fully. As may be seen from the lit-
erature which we have just reviewed, the problem has not been
studied as a whole. What is said about it, is said in the wider con-
text of other themes of study. Thus, it has been studied (a) in con-
nection with the problem of the Armenian Church’s relationship
with other Churches (Galanus, Ter-Mik‘elean, Ter-Minaseanc),
(b) in the context of the history of the Eastern Churches (Le Quien,
J. M. Neale, Fortescue), (c) in relation with the general history of
the Armenian Church and people (C‘amc‘ean, Issaverdens, Du-
laurier, Ormanean), (d) in connection with other particular studies
(Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Akinean, Ananean), or (c) in the context of the
Chalcedonian problem throughout the whole course of Armenian
Church history (Hacuni, Inglizean).

Now the problem must be studied as a whole so that it may be
understood more clearly and completely. This is what we pro-
pose to do in the following pages. Here we have the problem of
the Council of Chalcedon at the very centre of our investigation
and not on its fringes or in one of its phases.

This means that we have to concentrate on the study of that
period of Armenian Church history and theological literature,
which precedes the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, be-
cause it seems to us that the rejection is not a clear-cut act of one

1 Indeed, they display a large variety of views when they come to interpret the
cause, the nature, and the significance of the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon,
as will be shown in the course of our study.

20 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

moment, but rather the outcome of a process of theological
thinking and orientation, and the early stages therefore have to be
studied as much as the rejection itself. To understand the Armen-
ian position involves, first of all, an appreciation of the historical
situation of the Armenian Church and, particularly, its theo-
logical milieu, both in the period before the rejection of the Council
of Chalcedon and at the time when the rejection was formally
made. Therefore, the main part of our research will be devoted to
the study of the background — historical and doctrinal — of the re-
jection of the Council of Chalcedon.

In the same way, we must try to understand what Chalcedon
really meant to Christians in the eastern parts of the Byzantine
Empire. In other words: what was the picture of Chalcedon in its
historical and doctrinal setting of the fifth and the earliest years of
the sixth centuries ? Because this question has generally been over-
looked, a great deal of confusion has arisen from the fact that
many of those who have dealt with the position of the Armenian
Church in relation to Chalcedon have had in mind the Chalce-
donian doctrine as understood to-day and the Council of Chalce-
don as accepted at present by the greater part of Christendom. We
must fmd, then, the Chalcedon of the period in which it was
faced and dealt with by the Armenian Church.

Finally, we must try to see the act of rejection through a careful
scrutiny of the documents in the light of our study of the back-
ground and the historical circumstances of the time.

Then, we think, it will not be difficult to conclude that if
the Armenians rejected the Council of Chalcedon it was not
because:

(<j) They were deceived or misled.

(b) They were unable to understand the doctrine of Chalcedon.

(d) Their language was inadequate for an accurate rendering of
the intricate meaning of the formularies.

(e) They were victims of a false and unfortunate identification
of the Chalcedonian doctrine with Nestorianism.

INTRODUCTION

Rather:

(a) Their attitude was primarily religious and theological, not
political.

(b) The rejection of the Council of Chalcedon did not happen
suddenly or accidentally. There was a struggle within the Church
before it took place.

(c) The Armenians did not confound Nestorianism with Chal-
cedon; but the tw'o only became closely associated and Chalcedon
only became of vital importance for the Armenian Church when
the Nestorians themselves took it as a source of strength and as a
vindication of the orthodoxy of their doctrinal position.

(d) The rejection was a very natural and reasonable act, closely
consistent with their doctrinal position, when seen in the context
of their historical and theological tradition.

These are the main points which will come up in the course of
the present study and which we will try to substantiate by the ex-
isting historical and theological evidence.

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

The Council of Chalcedon has been described as “le plus oecu-
meniquedetousceuxqui furent jamais”. 1 This is true in so far as it
refers to the extent of its attendance, 2 yet, at the same time,
Chalcedon has been, and still is, the most controversial council in
the tradition of Eastern Christendom. The role it played in the
history of the Eastern Church at the end resulted in the unhappy
schism of the Church: its division into “Orthodox” and “Mono-
physite ” sections.

It is not therefore surprising that there is such an immense quan-
tity of literature on the Council of Chalcedon. Its fifteenth centen-
ary, celebrated in 1951, provided a new stimulus for further research
and deeper study, which culminated in a reaffirmation by both
the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches of its great
importance and the value of its orthodox formulations. 3

1 Devreesse, Anlioche, preface, p. xii.

1 The number of the ecclesiastics — bishops and their representatives — who atten-
ded the Council varies between 500 and 636 in different documents and with
different historians. See Hefele, Councils, vol. iii, pp. 297—8 ; cf Sellers, Chalcedon,
p. 104, n. 1. E. Honigmann’s new research into the original lists of the members
of the Council makes it clear that 521 is the most probable number. (See Honig-
mann. Original Lists, pp. 41-64, particularly pp. 45-7, 62.) “In any case,’’ as
Hefele puts it, “none of the previous synods had been nearly so numerous, and
even among all that were subsequently held, but very few can in this respect be
placed beside the Council of Chalcedon” ( Councils , vol. iii, p. 298). The presence
of the imperial commissioners, eighteen in number, and then the appearance of
the emperor Marcian and the empress Pulcheria in the sixth session, with all the
attention and importance they attached to it, gave a singular significance to the
Council.

3 The imposing work which marked the significance of the Council in terms
of new scientific research and theological reassertion was the Das Konzil von

24 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Obviously our investigation is not concerned primarily with
the study of the Council of Chalcedon as such. Yet it cannot
be pursued properly and studied adequately without a clear
understanding of the Council of Chalcedon as it was seen and
understood at the time of its convention and in the im-
mediately subsequent period of ecclesiastical life and theological
thinking. In other words, it seems to us impossible to make any
valuable statement about the relation of the Armenian Church
to the Council of Chalcedon unless we have understood the
latter in the particular conditions of the period with which we are
dealing. And this means that we must start with the Council of
Chalcedon.

But it must be added that our work does not amount to a
thoroughgoing study of the Council. We do not propose to
attempt such a vast task here. We shall look again at its proceed-
ings in order to fmd there what we think to be the causes of the
later troubles and the christological controversies which emerged
from the Council of Chalcedon. For it seems to us that they have
played a considerable part in the formation of the attitudes of so
many Eastern provinces of Christianity, including the Armenian
Church. Therefore, far from saying anything new about the
Council of Chalcedon, we intend in this chapter only to describe
the background of the later“ Chalcedonian Question”, which was
faced by the Armenian Church and which can be understood only
through a direct inquiry into the origins of the problem, i.e. the
Council itself.

Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart — three large volumes edited by A. Grill-
meier and H. Bacht with contributions from a host of distinguished scholars and
theologians of the Roman Catholic Church. Several other articles and books also
appeared in various theological reviews on the same occasion, each making in its
own way new attempts for a fuller understanding of the Council and of the
theological issues and attitudes in the fourth and fifth centuries. See among others
Chadwick, Eucharist and Christology; De Juaye, XVe. centenaire ; Diepen, Trois-
chapitres; Idem, Assumptus Homo-, Nicolas, Christologie St. Leon; Murphy, Peter
speaks through Leo; Dombalis, Symposium (articles by G. Florovsky and A. Schme-
mann); Camelot, Theologies.

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

I. SOME SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

The death of the emperor Theodosius II (28 July 450) and the
coming to power of Martian (25 August 450) involved an impor-
tant change, “aussi rapide que complet”, 1 in the ecclesiastical
policy of the Byzantine Empire. The religious sympathies of the
new emperor shifted to the opposite side from those of his pre-
decessor. If the former policy was fostered and dominated by
Chrysaphios the eunuch, the new policy marked the victory of
Pulcheria, Chrysaphios’ victim. 2 “It is worthy to notice”, says
Bury, “that Chrysaphios had favoured the Green faction of the
Circus and that Martian patronized the Blues.” 3
In this new climate of policy Martian, deeply concerned with
the ecclesiastical unity of the Empire, as any other emperor would
be if he was aware of the power and influence of the Church in the
Empire, invited the bishops to a council

that they might reach agreement in their discussions and the whole
truth be investigated; that the passions which some on earlier occas-
ions have displayed and so made havoc of one holy orthodox wor-
ship, might be excluded; that our true faith might be more clearly
understood for all time; and thus there could be in the future no
doubt or difference of opinion. 4

In this hope the Council was opened on 8 October 451. It cov-
ered the whole month. The closing session was held on 1 Nov-
ember.

The Council thus concluded, Martian now felt that his wish

1 Lebon, Monophysisme Shorten, p. 8 ; cf 10-n.

2 See Goubert, Pulcherie et Chrysaphios ; see also an interesting remark in
Michael Syrus, Chronicle, bk. viii, ch. 10 (Chabot, Michel le Syrien, vol. ii, p. 38).

3 Bury, Later Rom. Etnp., vol. i, p. 236; cf Wigram, Separation, p. 13. For the
“ Blues ” and the “ Greens ” see Gregoire, Peupte de CP. Sellers characterizes this
change in the sphere of ecclesiastical life in the following statement: “But when,
upon the death of Theodosius (450), Pulcheria and Marcian came to the throne,
the tables were turned. The new rulers would not tolerate the Alexandrian sup-
remacy: in future it was from Constantinople that, like the State, the Church was
to be governed” (Chalcedon, p. xii).

* A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 1, p. 27.

26 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

was accomplished. Unity would be restored and maintained. 1
Every obstacle in the way of the unity and orthodoxy of the
Church seemed to have been removed. So, with a quiet mind and
an assured heart he could give his imperial confirmation to the de-
cisions of the Council, at the same time ordering the people to
obey and follow them :

At last what we wished, with earnest desire, has come to pass. Con-
troversy about the Orthodox religion of christians has been put
away; remedies have been found for culpable error; and diversity of
opinion among the peoples has issued in common consent and con-
cord. All, therefore, shall be bound to hold to the decisions of the
sacred Council of Chalcedon and to indulge no further doubts. 2

No one can miss the firmness of the emperor’s conviction and
the force of the command. And yet “on n’obeissait guere aux
decrets imperiaux”. 3 This soon became evident. To put it again
in the words of the same writer :

Lorsque le concile de Chalcedoine fut acheve, lorsque les eveques
qui y avaient prit part furent rentres dans leurs dioceses, on put
apprecier a sa veritable valeur 1’ oeuvre qui venait d’etre accomplie,
et bien vite il apparut que cette oeuvre etait loin d’etre parfaite. 4
. . . Il etait reserve a l’avenir de montrer a quel point leur oeuvre
etait fragile. 5

For, to use another expression borrowed from Devreesse: “Des
points nevralgiques ont ete touches”. 6

But before we proceed to that later period we must try here
to examine the proceedings of the Council itself and to find there
the “fragility” or the “points nevralgiques” referred to. These

1 He already had expressed his full satisfaction with the work of the Council
even before the conclusion of it. He did this when he addressed the sixth session
by congratulating the Council for its great achievement in restoring the unity of
faith. (See A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, pp. 139-40 [335-6].)

2 Kidd, Documents, vol. ii, p. 301; cf A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 3, pp. 120-1
[ 479 - 80 ].

3 Bardy, Chalcedoine, p. 276.

4 Ibid., pp. 271-2.

5 Bardy, Brigandage, p. 240.

6 Devreesse, Antioche, p. 63.

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

were proved later to have been present, though they could not
easily be recognized or clearly appreciated in the enthusiastic
atmosphere of the assembly.

A. A New Language

The first characteristic feature of the Council of Chalcedon, as it
emerges from a reading of its Acts, is the prominent part played
by the Roman legates with their insistence that the Tome of Leo
should be accepted unconditionally and in toto.

In fact, throughout the Council, the Roman delegation was in
control. Thus, the very beginning of the first session was not only
marked by a hostile, and even aggressive, attitude towards the
person of Dioscorus, and through him towards the See of Alex-
andria , 1 but also by the striking initiative of the Roman legates in
taking control of the Council . 2

1 It must be remembered that Alexandria had taken the lead inEastem Christen-
dom in the sphere of Christian thought. It reached the peak of its strength and
influence with Cyril in the Council of Ephesus. From that moment onwards its
ever-increasing prestige and doctrinal authority began to overshadow the influ-
ence of the other Eastern christological tradition, i.e. the Antiochene school, and
to reduce the significance of the Patriarchate of the imperial city.

2 This aspect of the Council is very well expressed by Hefele in the following
comment : “ In what relation the legates stood to the Synod and to the imperial
commissioners may be ascertained with sufficient certainty from the detailed
history of the Council. We shall see that the official arrangements of the business
were managed by the Commissioners. . . . As, however, the business was man-
aged by the imperial commissioners, the papal legates appeared in the trans-
actions rather as the first voters than as the presidents, but with an unmistakable
superiority over all the other voters, as representatives of the head of the whole
church, as they expressly said, and firm in the conviction that every resolution
of the Synod to which they did not assent was null and void” ( Councils , vol. iii,
pp. 296-7).

This was later said more clearly by the great expert of the historical study of the
Roman Church’s authority, Mgr Batiffol: the Council of Chalcedon “sera
l’apogee en Orient du principatus du siege apostolique” (Sikge Apostolique p. 534).
Again and more explicitly: “II est incontestable, en effet, que le concile de Chal-
cedoine est le moment oil 1’ Orient reconnait le plus explicitement le droit du
siege apostolique a ce principatus que Rome revendique en matiere de foi et
d’ordre comme la condition de la communion de l’Eglise universelle” (Si£ge
Apostolique, p. 618. See the whole ch. 8 ; La Papauti a ChaMdoine , pp. 493-589).

The subsequent unswerving support of the Council of Chalcedon by the
Roman Church will be taken into account later in this chapter.

28 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

They manifested an authority in the Council unequalled in any
former Council or in any previous ecclesiastical affairs in the East.
The words uttered by Paschasinus, the head of the delegation,
at the opening session were strong enough to impress the mem-
bers of the Council with the firmness of their conviction and sense
of authority:

We have a commission from the most holy and most apostolic
Bishop of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, to see that
Dioscorus shall have no seat (or vote) in the Council, and if he shall
venture upon this, that he be expelled. This commission we must
fulfill. If it seems well to your highnesses (the imperial commis-
sioners), either he must retire or we depart . 1

We have to note carefully that the authority they claimed was
not simply of a disciplinary nature. Neither was it intended for
mere disciplinary measures or purposes. The papal legates were
not there to settle a problem of Church order or administration.
Theirs was an authority also in a doctrinal sense. In simple terms,
they were not there merely for the purpose of deposing Dioscorus,
who had gone so far in the exercise of his authority; their com-
mission extended further and deeper : to secure the acceptance of
the christological doctrine as set forth in the Letter of Leo to
Flavian, known as the “Tome of Leo”. The condemnation of
Dioscorus was not, then, the final aim. It only removed the most
difficult obstacle to victory. This would be achieved by a general
assent to and acceptance of the Tome as Regula Fidei.

The Letter of Leo was read in the second session of the Council.
Roman influence, supported as it was by imperial authority, was
predominant. In this atmosphere many bishops hailed the Tome
with acclamation. Yet there were others, namely those from Pal-
estine and Illyricum, who found it, mainly on three points , 2
ambiguous and its language unfamiliar. Its doctrine seemed at first
sight unsound, or at least not in harmony with what they were

1 A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. I, p. 6s. Particularly revealing in this respect is the
final session, in which the famous twenty-eighth canon was strongly opposed by
the papal legates.

2 See Additional Note i.

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

used to. They showed enough courage, even in the absence of
Dioscorus and other leading figures of their group, to protest
and raise objections . 1

The explanations given at the moment did not satisfy them , 2
so they asked time to consider the passages in question more care-
fully and to scrutinize them in detail. They were given five days
to study the Tome to see whether it corresponded to the true
faith, which was, in their minds, as in many others’, the Cyrilline
Christology.

In the fourth session, Paschasinus declared once more that the
“true faith” was the faith as expounded in the Tome of Leo and
that faith the Synod held, and allowed nothing to be added to it
or taken from it . 3 On this declaration, which came again as a
warning, the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine finally gave
approval to the Tome, having been already assured of its ortho-
doxy during previous consultations with the Roman legates and
the other bishops . 4

Their change of attitude, however, did not solve the prob-
lem, which had been raised by them when the Tome was first
read. Now the Council faced the most unyielding opposition to
the Tome by the bishops from Egypt, the stronghold of Cyrilline
christology. These, thirteen in number, said openly that they
could not, as representatives of the Egyptian hierarchy, subscribe
to the Tome. They had to wait until an archbishop was elected to
the See of Alexandria in succession to Dioscorus, now condemned
and deposed by the Synod. This objection was not a mere escape
from responsibility, as it may appear at first sight. It was, indeed,
basically the result of their realization that acceptance of the Tome
of Leo and subscription to it would mean failure on their part to
maintain their loyalty to the theology of Cyril. The language of
the Tome was so hard to their ears and revealed such close asso-
ciations with Antiochene christological terminology, that they
simply could not consent to it. This is clearly shown in a rather
dramatic and yet most revealing episode which followed their

1 SeeAC.O., t. ii.vol.i, pt. 2, pp. i5-i7[2ii-i3], 2 See Additional Note 1.

i SeeA.C.O., t. ii, vol. j, pt. 2, p. 103. 4 S ceA.C.O., t.ii, vol. i, pt. 2,p. 103.

30 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

first refusal in the Council. Thus, when they were urged insistently
by the Synod to subscribe they simply answered all the more
clearly because they could see the consequences of their actions :
“We can no longer live at home if we do this.” The pressure
became stronger. The Roman legates were not the kind of men to
give up easily. Their commission was strict. They had to carry it
out to the end. But again the Egyptian bishops, now in a desper-
ately critical and difficult situation, cried out: “We shall be killed,
we shall be killed if we do it! We would rather be made away
with here by you than there . . . Have mercy upon us, show us
kindness !” 1

Now, these words may easily be taken as denoting a deplorable
failure to face difficulties for the sake of the truth of God. They
can equally be regarded as revealing a tactful way of exagger-
ating or intensifying the facts of the moment and the foreseeable
events of the future. But these interpretations, however plausible
they may seem for various reasons or from various standpoints,
are far from explaining the real meaning of the Alexandrian
bishops’ move . 2

In fact, the bishops knew more than anyone else what the
theological situation was, or, to put it perhaps more accurately,
what was the state of theological feeling in Alexandria in partic-
ular and in the provinces under its influence in general. No doubt,

' See the episode in. 4 . C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, pp. 112-13 [308-9].

* The opposition to the Tome of Leo was by no means confined to the thirteen
bishops from Egypt. In an additional note to this passage in the French translation
of Hefele’s work, Dorn H. Leclercq states that the opposition extended even out-
side the Council in the city of Constantinople: “Hors du concile ce document
provoquait une attention et des controverses non moins vives par suite de [’obli-
gation etendue aux monasteres de Constantinople de souscrire cette lettre”
( Connies , vol. ii, pt. 2, pp. 705-7, n. 1). Jalland somehow minimizes the oppo-
sition to the Tome of Leo within the Council itself when he says : “ Apart from a
few dissentients the majority of those present loudly approved these statements”
(Leo the Great, p. 292). He seems to have passed over the objections raised there;
he does not give due consideration to them and treats them as if they were of
secondary importance. Again, he does not make any attempt to realize the impli-
cations of those objections taken in the circumstances of the Eastern theological
atmosphere. However, he does seem to have recognized the importance of this
opposition in his The Church and the Papacy. (See pp. 307 ff.)

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON 31

Alexandrian, christology at this period and in the shape given to it
by Cyril, the unrivalled theologian of the time, had been formed
and strengthened through the struggle with the Antiochene
School of theology, widely and commonly known as the Separ-
atist or D ualis tic christology. That christology was now condemned.
The Council of Ephesus had pronounced its final word of judge-
ment upon it. Its champion, Nestorius, had lived in exile for
many years now. Of course it is true that the School had not yet
died; but it is equally true that it had been confined mainly to the
eastern borders of the Empire and was beginning to lose its hold
on the provinces within the Empire. The struggle was still con-
tinuing; but it was a struggle which in the eyes of all those who
welcomed the Council of Ephesus would end with the victory of
the Church, as it had done with Arianism and the other heresies.
At least, one thing was clear: Antiochene christology was dis-
credited on a large scale because of the condemnation of Nes-
torius . 1

And now to hear a new language from the West so consonant
with the one condemned, and, in some places, even surpassing it
in its separatist tone, was indeed distressing for the followers of the
Ephesian tradition. This was the real motive of their action, which
was far from being an act of sheer “stubbornness” as Sellers puts
it . 2

Furthermore, another instance in which the Tome of Leo had
an unsympathetic reception was the discussion over the doctrinal
formula drafted most probably by Anatolius, bishop of Con-
stantinople, the aim of which was to meet the criticisms of those
who were finding themselves embarrassed by the Tome of Leo.
While the majority of the bishops in the fifth session acclaimed
this new formula with enthusiastic approval, the Roman legates
were suspicious, and, therefore, very reluctant to join the other
bishops. They saw in this new formula a dangerous alternative to

1 See below, pp. 35 ff.

2 Sellers, Chakedon,p. 1 16. (Nor was Harnack justified in characterizing these
reluctant bishops as “ der Koptische Fanatismus ” {quoted by Lebon, Monophysisme
Sfufrien, pp. 14-15).

32 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

the Tome of Leo which compromised the absolute authority of the
latter and might overshadow it. So the legates, having fully real-
ized this, threatened to leave the Council and to return to Rome.
In the same authoritative way they made their position clear in
strict and unequivocal terms :

If they do not agree with the letter of Leo the apostolic and most
blessed archbishop, give orders that we be given our papers that we
may return home and a synod be held there . 1

This was a crucial moment for the imperial commissioners.
They were “alarmed ” 2 by the threat. They could not allow any
clash or breach, because their only purpose in convening the
Council was to settle the disputes in order to secure the unity and
peace of the Empire. The departure of the Roman legates would
complicate the matter and, consequently, the difficulties would be-
come harder to cope with later. So they proposed the way of
compromise by creating a commission to amend the proposed
formula or to draw up a new definition of faith acceptable to all.
They went as far as to order the synod to “receive into the creed
the doctrine ofLeo, which has been stated ”. 3
At this juncture there is a break in the Acts. As Hefele says:

Whether anything, and if so what, was here objected to by the maj-
ority we do not know. It is apparent that there is here a break in the
minutes, since without anything more and without any indication
of the reason for the alteration which was introduced, they go on to
relate that the whole of the members of the Synod now asked for the
meeting of the commission which they had previously opposed . 4

Unfortunately the text of the formula drawn up by Anatolius
is lost, as it is not included in the Acts of the Council. Therefore,
it is difficult to say precisely what in it was objected to by the
Roman legates, or in what kind of terminology it was shaped.

But what is important for us to note in this story is a very small
change in the text of the previous formula; the significance of
this change is out of all proportion to its textual or literal form. It

1 A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, p. 123 [319]. 2 Jalland, Leo the Great, p. 296.

5 A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, p. 125. 4 Hefele, Councils, vol. iii, p. 345.

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON 33

is tremendously important for both theological and historical
reasons. There can be no doubt that what we have now in the so-
called Chalcedonian Definition, the reconstructed form of Ana-
tolius’ formula, as eV 8uo (fivaeai must have been cV Sdo <f>v<rd cov
in the previous formula which was so categorically rejected by
the Roman legates. 1

This change reveals the true spirit of the Council. eV S vo
(f>voea)v was of course accepted by Dioscorus, as was stated in the
Council itself, and, no doubt, would be acceptable to all the
Alexandrians, as the post-Chalcedonian controversy showed. It
was coherent with their christology. And when this was pointed
out by the Roman legates as an objection to the orthodoxy of
Anatolius’ formula, the latter answered that Dioscorus was not
condemned for doctrinal unorthodoxy but for disciplinary
reasons. 2

However, things did not go in the direction of Anatolius, but
turned to the Roman side again, when in spite of the spontaneous
opposition of the majority of the bishops 3 the « St jo <f>v<jewv was
changed into iv St >o <j>v<jeot, This happened most probably, as
we saw above, during a break in the meeting when, under the
pressure of the imperial commissioners and the insistence of the

1 Sec for the arguments for the probability of this change Sellers, Chalcedon,
pp. 1 16 ff; Galtier, Cyrille el Leon, pp. 358-62; Diepen, Trois Chapitres, pp.
71-2; Hefcle, Conciles, vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 72011. For the discussion of its original form
in the text of the Definition see Hefele, Councils, p. 348, n. 1 ; Sellers, Chalcedon,
p. 120.

3 See A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, p. 124 [320]. One has to note also that not only
Anatolius, but most of the Oriental bishops stood for the proposed formula,
eV Suo <fivo 4 u>v. It is surprising to see among these bishops Eusebius of Dory-
laeum, the staunch opponent of Eutyches and one of the ardent leaders of the
anti-Dioscorian group. It must be accepted that in the Chalcedonian Definition —
itself a “mosaic” form of doctrinal document exposing before us many similar-
ities with other Eastern confessions of faith, namely the Formulary of Reunion of
433 and the Confession of Flavian (see Sellers, Chalcedon, pp. 207-8; cf Diepen,
Trois Chapitres, pp. 107-15) — the change of eV into tv was the heart of the theo-
logical issue. Whatever significance we may give to it now in the general context
of the Definition, there is no doubt that it was the centre of the discussion. In-
deed, it denotes the victory of the separatist way of thinking and as such it was, as
Diepen puts it, the “pivot de la Definition "(Trois Chapitres, p. 117).

3 SeeAC.O.,t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, pp. 123-6(319-22],

34 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

papal legates, the Orientals gave way. The tension came to an
end, again with the victory of Rome, with the new language
gaining status as part of the Regula Fidei.

Full agreement had now been reached within the Council. But
although the Tome of Leo had secured its place of honour and its
position of authority in the Council, it had still to be defended and
firmly established. So, again, it is not unimportant to note diat in
the Allocutio sent to the Emperor Marcian the Council spoke of
Leo as the champion against every error, and added :

Let no one attack the contents of the Tome by alleging that it is
somehow alien to the faith, saying that it is not allowed for the for-
mulation of the faith to be at variance with the faith of the Nicene
Fathers.'

They concluded the letter to the emperor with the same doubts
and fears or anxieties in the background of their minds :

Let them (i.e. the opponents of the Tome) not bring forward the
Tome of the admirable bishop of the Roman See as being an inno-
vation . 2

What we learn from the tension, as revealed in the Acts and
which we examined above, amounts briefly to these two points :

(a) The Roman legates had to make sure that the Tome was
accepted in toto without any alteration or amendment being made
to it and that its orthodoxy was never questioned or challenged.
That was the price paid for the Chalcedonian Definition.

(i b ) The holders of the Cyrilline christology or Ephesian tradi-
tion had to be assured that they were not following Leo, but
Cyril ; therefore no change had occurred in their traditional posi-
tion.

That was the purpose aimed at by the Definition.

Did the price prove to be worth paying? Was the aim achieved?
More explicitly, was there a real coming together, a finding of

! A.C.O., t. ii, vol.i, pt. 3,p. no [469]. 2 A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 3,p. 113 [472].

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON 35

common ground, a synthesis, in the true sense of the word, quite
apart from what may be called a juxtaposition of views or atti-
tudes ? These are questions which must be answered in our account
of the subsequent events of the Council of Chalcedon.

At this juncture one thing is clear enough to be stated straight-
forwardly: "Saint Leon a domine (le concile) de Chalcedoine’’. 1
And Pope Leo was a new voice in the East speaking a new lan-
guage-

What the bishops at the Council were afraid would happen,
namely that this language would be interpreted as an innovation,
was in fact what happened after the Council.

B. The Taint of Nestorianism

The Arts of the Council of Chalcedon reveal to us another aspect
which is more closely linked with the principal theme of our study.
Obviously, the Council accepted and affirmed once more the
condemnation of Nestorius. Eutyches and Nestorius equally stood
for two extremes which the Council formally anathematized. Its
task, as it is understood by the great majority of the Church his-
torians and theologians of to-day, was to find the via media, i.e.
the solution of the conflict in terms of a compromise, or, to use a

> Galtier, Cyrille etUon, p. 345. Diepen, in his turn, puts the question straight-
forwardly: “Synthese de l’Occident et de l’Orient? Disons plutot presidence de
l’Occident sur toutes les eglises. Les Peres de Chalcedoine refererent le Tome de
saint Ldon aux ecrits de saint Cyrille pour en constater l’orthodoxie: A4wv elircv
t a KvpMov Saint Leon, lui, s’affirme au contraire, comme le Docteur authen-
tique, par sa charge, de l’figlise universelle. C’est lui qui approuve la theologie
cyrillienne, et desapprouve certaines tendances de l'episcopat qui se reclame de
saint Cyrille,” Then, after saying how St. Leo avoided the Eutychianism, he re-
turns to the problem of Anatolius’ formula which was amended by the Roman
legates and shows how Leo influenced the doctrine of the Council. “Le projet
presume d’Anatole ne semble pas avoir eu la mime precision tandis qu’au con-
traire son exclusion du dualisme antiochien n’eut qu’a recueitlir l’entiere appro-
bation de saint Leon. Sur ce dernier point il n’y eut ni compromis, ni synthese,
ni complement, mais convergence et unite. L’ceuvre de saint Leon a Chalcedoine
a ete une oeuvre de moderation et de mesure.

“En tant qu’elle sera pour tous les siecles suivants le phare qui indique les deux
ecueils opposes du monophysisme et du nestorianisme, la Definition de Chalce-
doine fut une oeuvre romaine, l’oeuvre de saint Leon le Grand” ( Trois Chapitres,
pp. 117-18).

36 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

happier term, a synthesis. But sometimes the attempt is one thing
and the achievement another thing. And, as it seems to us, this is
true of the Council of Chalcedon.

Let us, then, see how this happened in the case of the attitude
which the Council took towards the burning issue of the time,
i.e. Nestorianism. In order to understand this we must first be
aware of the theological situation and the ecclesiastical affairs of
the period which lies between Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).

The struggle between the Orthodox and the Nestorians — in
other words, between the Alexandrians and Antiochenes — was
still going on. The condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus and his
exile in the desert had not resulted in the extinction of his doc-
trine, which was now being supported and strengthened by the
students of the Antiochene School. These, in fact, deeply resented
that condemnation, which they regarded as an act of injustice and
which they interpreted as a hard blow at the roots of their own
christological position. As they had not moved from their posi-
tion, they could not bear this blow in a spirit of resignation. 1
That, indeed, would mean treason to their own cause.

The Reunion Act of 433 reached by Cyril and John of Antioch,
the leaders of the two sides, was a momentary and very precarious
one, and it did not achieve its desired object in the life of the
Church. It was an act, it remained a formulary, but was never
changed into an event in the full sense of this term, that is to say,
with important and permanent consequences. 2 * * * * The high repu-

1 See Devreesse, Apr'es Ephhe; D’Ales, Symbotede 433’, Diepen, Trois Chapitres,
pp. 30-45; Doucin, Hist. Nest., pp. 246-70; Vine, Nestorian Churches, pp. 33-4;
Labourt, Christ. Perse, p. 253.

2 For Cyril himself this was necessary 7 for the peace of the Church. The Form-

ulary of Reunion meant for him the acceptance of his christology by the Antio-
chenes. The “ Theotokos” was included there. But what was more important was

that the expression “ the union of two natures” (5w yap fieoeuiv Zvuiols ytyove)

was accepted. Therefore he could say, “Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be

glad, for the middle wall of partition is broken down, exasperation is stilled, and
all occasion for discussion utterly removed through the bestowal of peace upon
his churches by Christ, the Saviour of us all ” (Evagrius, Eccl. Hist. bk. i, ch. 6, Engl,
tr. p. 10; Bidez, p. 11).

In a similar way, John of Antioch, the leader of the opposite side, also had the

CHA.ICEDON AFTER CHALC1DON

tationof a Theodore of Mopsuestia 1 the skilful activities of a Theo-
doret of Cyrus , 2 with a group of ardent supporters behind them

same feeling. But many other influential figures on the Antiochene side, such as
Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of Samosata, or even Theodoret, either entirely
disagreed with or practically disregarded the Reunion Act. They persistently re-
fused to accept the condemnation of Nestorius. (See their attitude, well presented
by Diepen, Trois Chapitres, pp. 30-45; Sellers, Chakedon, p. 20 ff; Devreesse,
Essai, pp. 131-4.)

The reality of the tension, still strong, is reflected in a very characteristic way by
the words ascribed to Theodoret, who on the death of Cyril (440) wrote: “At
last with a final struggle the villain has passed away . . . observing that his malice
increased daily and injured the body of the Church, the Governor of our souls
has lopped him off like a canker. . . . His departure delights the survivors, but
possibly disheartens the dead; there is some fear that under the provocation of his
company they may send him back again to us. . . . Care must therefore be taken
to order the guild of undertakers to place a very big and heavy stone on his grave
to stop him coming back here. ... I am glad and rejoice to see the fellowship of
the Church delivered from such a contagion ; but I am saddened and sorry as I
reflect that the wretched man never took rest from his misdeeds, but died de-
signing greater and worse” (Theodoret, Ep. 180, quoted by Prestige, Fathers and
Heretics ,p. i5;cfAmann, Trois Chapitres, col. 1876-7).

As Theodoret’s position is the most important of all, one must read also Bardy’s
comment. (SeeBardy, Thiodoret, col. 300-1.)

1 It is beyond doubt that Theodore held almost the same kind of position in the
Antiochene tradition as Cyril in the Alexandrian. His reputation was not touched
in any way by the Council of Chalcedon. The silence of the latter enhanced his
authority through the rehabilitation of his faithful followers, Theodoret and Ibas.
In the preface of his essay, Mgr Devreesse says: “Les contemporains de Theodore
l’ont regard^ conune 1’un des plus redoutables adversaires dcs hdrdsies qui s’etaient
implantes dans les dglises orientales; ils 1’ont defendu avec une ardeur et une
emotion dont les accents nous touchent aujourd’hui encore, car ils voyaient dans
l’attaque entreprise contre sa memoire et son ceuvre, se faire jour des preoccu-
pations qui n’dtaient pas celle de l’orthodoxie traditionelle ” (Essai, p. v). Ibas
admired him as the greatest authority in Christian doctrine. Writing to Mari the
Persian about the “wicked” attack of Rabbula on Theodore, he describes this
latter as “heraut de la veritc, docteux de l'£glise, qui non settlement en sa vie
souffleta les herctiques pour l’honneur de sa vraie foi, mais apres la mort a laissd
dans ses doits une arme spirituelle aux enfants de PEgUse.” (See d’Ales, Lettre
d’lhas, p. 8 ; cf A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 3, p. 33.)

1 Particularly important are his writings against Cyril and his theology. Apart
from his book against the Twelve Anathematisms which was written in the be-
ginning of 431, he wrote two others after the Council of Ephesus, one against
Cyril and the Council of Ephesus and the other in defence of Diodore and Theo-
dore. Unfortunately both of them are lost in their original text, Only a few frag-
ments survive. (See Bardy, Theodoret, col. 304.)

38 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

were keeping the condemned doctrine alive. For that doctrine
was not Nestorius’ own; but as it belonged to a famous School,
being attached to the memory of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore
of Mopsuestia — to mention the most important teachers — and
having such a long history behind it, it could not be abandoned so
easily and suddenly . 1

Apart from the efforts of Theodoret and his close friends, there
were the Syrian regions on the south-east borders of the Empire,
where the teaching of Nestorius was gaining considerable ground
and securing a firm stand . 2 The School of Edessa was the centre of
such a widespread activity in both literary and “missionary”
domains. From here, for example, came the translations of the
works of the Antiochene theologians and especially those of Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, the great Master of Nestorianism as well as
the “Interpreter” of the Scriptures , 3 “dont l’oeil s’obscursit dans
Fetude desEcritures sans arret et sans interruption ”. 4

Being always under the hostile eyes of the Byzantine rulers and
driven out of the Empire, the Nestorians became the doctrinal
teachers of the Christians in the Persian Empire. The expansion of
Nestorianism, in fact, was to gain such a firm hold there that the
Church in the Persian Empire later accepted and proclaimed it as
the official confession of faith . 5

This was, then, the atmosphere in which the Council of Chalce-

1 The later controversy over the Three Chapters is highly significant to
this effect. The testimony of Innocentius Maroniae, followed by that of Libera-
te, is most valuable, as we shall see later. However, it is worth noting, as
Amann suggests, that Cyril himself had already changed his position. His
former rather mild attitude towards the Reunion Act had already gone. He
soon became anti-Diodorian and anti-Theodorian. (See Amann, Trois Chapitres,
col. 1872-3.)

2 The masters and the disciples of the school of Edessa “malgre la condem-
nation solennelle des erreurs de Nestorius au concile d’Ephese en 431, avaient
toujouis continud a professer les doctrines de cet hdrdtique” (Chabot, 1 stole de
Nisibe, p. 45).

3 See Devreesse, Essai, pp. 5-42, 33-93 ; cf Doucin, Hist. Nest., pp. 279-80.

* Narses, Trois Docteurs, p. 509.

5 Later we shall present this situation in detail with its subsequent develop-
ments. Here we state the facts in broad terms only to bring out the main aspects of
the general situation.

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

don met. A sensitive world, indeed, where terms and formulas
were more than terms and formulas as we take them now.

With the full realization of this situation we now turn to look
once more at the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon.

The first thing to note is that Nestorius is openly and formally
condemned, even, perhaps, with more firmness than at Ephesus.
No one at all shows sympathy for him personally. He was justly
condemned at Ephesus. There could be no going back on the
attitude taken there. Many years now had already passed since his
condemnation and his life-long exile had made his “ cause”almost
a dead one.

But more important than the fact of the condemnation is the
significance of it in terms of the situation of the time. What did it
really mean to condemn Nestorius, or more precisely, to reaffirm
his condemnation? What impact could it have in the life of the
Church?

It is clear from what we said earlier in this chapter that Nes-
torianism was by no means confined to the personal teaching of
Nestorius ; neither was he the builder of the christological system
of which he later came to be the spokesman. He was only the
man who brought it into open conflict with Alexandrian christ-
ology, a conflict in which he found himself finally on the defeated
side. If we look beyond the actual terms, then, it is perfectly
legitimate to say that Nestorius and Nestorianism were not iden-
tical. It was possible, therefore, to stand by the doctrine known as
Nestorianism or, to use other terms, separatist or dualistic christ-
ology, without being necessarily a follower of Nestorius in the
strict sense of the word.

In fact, this attitude came to be for the Antiochenes not only one
possible way of saving their christological tradition, but at the
same time the wisest way of preserving it. For many of them it
became a clear conviction that what was condemned in Nestorius
could be saved from destruction only by dissociating it from the
name of Nestorius. And whatever they felt about him personally,
they had to pronounce the formal condemnation or anathema
on Nestorius when they were invited to do so to prove their

40 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

orthodoxy. In any case, Nestorius had to be sacrificed for the sur-
vival of the doctrine condemned under his name. All those who
at the bottom of their hearts could not or did not agree with his
condemnation nevertheless had to accept it as a fact. 1

It is obvious that with this important change in the position of
the Antiochene side, the affirmation of Nestorius’ condemnation
in the Council of Chalcedon had no serious meaning, nor could it
have any consequence of much importance to the "Nestorian”
cause. Nestorius belonged to the past. It was to the future that
they had to look.

There were other people, higher in authority than Nestorius,
whose names could shelter the doctrine which was attacked and
condemned in Nestorius. Thus, they had reasons also for accepting
Nestorius’ condemnation by the Council of Chalcedon, for two
incidents which occurred in that Council could make them confi-
dent that their tradition would survive :

(a) The rehabilitation of their two leading theologians, Theo-
doret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, in their episcopal functions.

(b) The recognition of the orthodoxy of their faith.

Thus, in the first session of the Council Theodoret of Cyrus was
admitted to the meeting. This aroused vehement protests from
among the bishops of Egypt, Palestine, and Illyricum, the sup-
porters of Dioscorus. In fact, Theodoret had always obstinately
refused to give assent to the condemnation of Nestorius. Well-
known for his anti-Cyrilline writings, he was the highest auth-
ority now on the Antiochene side, and he openly declared his
agreement with the teaching of Nestorius. It was this attitude of
his that led to his condemnation and his subsequent deposition
from the episcopal see of Cyrus in the second Council of Ephesus

1 Lebon has well recognized this aspect of post-Ephesian history : “ Nestorius
avait seul etait frappe par la sentence du concile d’Ephese (431) ; ceux qui restaient
en secret, les partisans de ses doctrines, se dcciderent enfin a le laisser dans l’ombre.
11 s se mirent avec ardeur i traduire et a propager les Merits de Diodore de Tarse et
de Theodore de Mopsueste. Cette tactique rusee, suivie surtout par Ibas d’£desse
et par ses collegues de l’ecole des Perses, ne servit qu’i exciter la resistance des
adversaires du nestorianisme” (Monophysisme StvSrien, p. 2; cf Labourt, Christ.
Perse, p. 252).

CHALCBDON AFTER CHALCEDON 4.I

(449). It is, then, a matter of no surprise to see him inseparably
associated with Nestorius. This explains why the bishops when
they protested against his presence in the Council introduced the
name of the empress Pulcheria who formerly had sympathized
with the Cyrilline party against Nestorius: “The Empress drove
out Nestorius — long live the orthodox empress — the Synod does
not receive Theodoret.” 1

But Theodoret had already won the sympathy of Leo before
the Council of Chalcedon met. 2 This sympathy made his way
into the Council all too easy; as the imperial commissioners
themselves said at his arrival in the session, he had been already
reinstated in his episcopal function and he had been washed from
all suspicion of heresy by Leo. 3 Meanwhile, notwithstanding all
this opposition, he was accepted by the Council and began to
take part in the deliberations. He asked that his deposition by
Dioscorus be examined and judged. But his case did not come up
for consideration until 26 October, in the eighth session of the
assembly. 4

Now, the criterion by which his orthodoxy had to be tested and
proved was a formal anathema required of him against Nestorius.
And that he was not prepared yet to do.

One of the most interesting and eloquent passages in the Acts

' AC.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 1, p. 69.

2 See for the evidence Diepen, Trois Chapitres, p. 8 J ; also Zachariah, Chronicle,
bk. iii, ch. i, p. 42.

3 See AC.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 1, p. 69.

* Diepen, relating the story of Theodoret’s introduction in the Synod, makes
the following remark which is worth quoting: “L’incident se termina ainsi et
Theodoret put prendre part aux deliberations sans etrc inquiete par personne.
Mais il avait pu se rendre compte combien sa situation etait precaire dans 1 ’assem-
blee. Les exclamations en sa faveur semblaient plus inspirees par l’hostilite i
l’dgard de Dioscore que par l’unanimite avec lui, Theodoret. Et celles du parti
contraiie temoignaient d’une inimitie implacable. II etait tolere provisoirement
commeaccusateur, maispouretremisbientotenetatd’accusation. Car le passage des
Palestiniens et des Illyriens au parti des Orientaux, et l’exclusion des Egyptiens
aura bien pour eflfet de retablir l’unite dans le concile, mais non pas d’apaiser les
ressentiments qui s’dtaient fait jour dans l’episode que nous venons de raconter.
Le role d’accusateur que saint Ldon lui avait destine, ne serait pas pour l’eveque
de Cyr de tout repos ” ( Trois Chapitres, p. 87).

42 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

of the Council is that one in which Theodoret and the bishops are
engaged in a lively debate. Apparently the bishops 1 on the one
hand are anxious to have the anathema in clear, unequivocal
words, but, on the other hand, Theodoret makes several attempts
and uses divers skilful means to escape doing what he has always
refused to do. Finally, under the pressure of the unyielding de-
mand of the assembly he is brought to pronounce the anathema.
Curiously enough, as if to overshadow this anathema, he also de-
clares his entire adherence to the Tome of Leo and to the Defin-
ition:

Anathema to Nestorius and to every one who does not call the holy
Virgin Mary Theotokos, and who divides the one Son, the only-
begotten, into two Sons. Morover, I have subscribed the definition
of faith by the Synod and the letter of the most holy archbishop Leo ;
and thus I think. 2

And when his “orthodoxy” is thus established he is given back
his bishopric.

A further example of pro- Antiochene sympathy in the Council
of Chalcedon was the rehabilitation of Ibas of Edessa in his ortho-
doxy, as it is described in the ninth and tenth sessions of the Coun-
cil, on 27 and 28 October.

Ibas had been the bishop of Edessa since 435. He had succeeded
the famous Rabbula, whose pro-Cyrilline policy he had opposed.
He was well known for his sympathies with Nestorianism. In
particular, he was himself wholeheartedly devoted to the propa-
gation of the works of Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mop-
suestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and other Antiochenes ; this was done
by means of Syriac translations made by himself or by his sup-
porters. 3 All these activities had aroused a strong opposition to

1 No precise identification of the bishops is given. No evaluation of their ten-
dencies is made either. With all probability, the whole assembly is understood
without any distinction.

2 A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 3, p. 9 [368].

3 “Les ceuvres de Theodore ont ete traduites en Syriaque, dans la premiere
moitie du Ve. siecle peu de temps apres la mort de leur auteur, a lTcole d’Fdesse,
par Ibas et ses disciples Probus, Koumi, Mana” (Duval, Litt. Syr. p. 87; cf pp. 254,
3 T 6, 343-4; Idem, Histoire d’&esse, pp. 174, 177-8; cf Venables, Ibas, p. 19b;
Doucin, Hist. Nest., p. 286; Amann, Trois Chapitres, col. 1877).

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

him among the people and the monks of Edessa, who remained
faithful to the memory of their former bishop, Rabbula, and con-
tinued the tradition of loyalty to Cyril’s christology. After a
stormy period of conflict 1 he had been condemned and de-
posed as a heretic by Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus
( 449 ).

Now, in the Council of Chalcedon when the tide had turned in
the opposite direction, his case was brought up. Like Theodoret,
he too complained of his condemnation and deposition. So the
proceedings of the previous councils which had dealt with his
case, i.e. Berytus and Tyr, were read. In conclusion he was recog-
nized as orthodox on the basis of his famous letter to Mari , 2 * which
was read here and approved . 2 Again, the final approval of his
orthodoxy was given when he pronounced a formal anathema
against Nestorius . 4

Now, it may seem that these events which occurred in the
Council and these aspects revealed therein are really of minor
importance, especially when compared with the generally as-
sumed “great doctrinal achievement” of Chalcedon, in which

1 He had been tried three times within two years, in Antioch (448), in Berytus
(449), in Tyr (449).

2 See d’Ates, Letire d’lbas ; cfLabourt, Christ. Perse, pp. 133-4, n. 6.

2 See A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 3, pp. 32-4 [391-3], 39-4* [398-401].

4 See A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 3, p. 42 [401]. That Nestomnism had become a
haunting idea in the minds of the bishops — those who were maintaining their
loyalty to St Cyril — is evident from many other passages in the Acts of the
Council. Without going into a detailed examination of them, we can point out
the following instance as a mere example. When the formula proposed by Ana-
tolius in the fifth session was opposed by John of Germanicia, this latter was imme-
diately accused as Nestorian by the majority of the bishops who supported the
formula, in which, as we already noted, the eV tvo <j>voi u>v was the central, essen-
tial statement. (See A.C.O., t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, p. 123 [319].) And a little later, the
same charge is repeated by the bishops of Illyricum with an even stronger em-
phasis. In fact, they went as far as to say: “The opponents are Nestorians, let the
opposers depart to Rome” ( A.C.O . , t. ii, vol. i, pt. 2, p. 125 [321]). This identi-
fication of Nestorianism with Rome is most revealing in reflecting the mind of
the bishops at Chalcedon on the relationship of Leo’s christology with Nestorius’
teaching. (See below, pp. 52 ff.) Particularly interesting is the account of the
Council of Chalcedon given in the Chronicle of Zachariah, who reflects the mind
of the anti-Chalcedonians concerning the Council. (See iii, r, pp. 41-7.)

44 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

“the Church possesses a treasure of inestimable worth ”. 1 But if
we try to see them in the proper context of the theological issues
of the time, they are shown to be extremely important; and in
fact they played a decisive role in the history of the Church and
of doctrine in the second half of the fifth century and throughout
the following century.

Again, in the limits we imposed on our study, we cannot go
into the details of that subsequent history. Indeed, it is a very
complicated story in itself, which should be a matter of special
concern and investigation . 2 But we must try to trace its general
lines and indicate its characteristic features.

This story may very easily be characterized as a history of sheer
polemics. And sometimes, how disheartening and depressing
these polemics are and how futile they seem to be! But apart from
any judgement we may make about their significance or value, we
have to see the events in their right historical perspective. In that
perspective we observe a continuous struggle between two sec-
tions, both of them still remaining within the fold of the Church.
In this struggle one cannot fail to see the increasing strength and
the growing predominance of the anti-Chalcedonian section over
the supporters of Chalcedon.

Let us illustrate this statement.

1 Sellers, Chalcedon, p. 350. That great doctrinal achievement is usually thought
of as being the combination in a synthesis of the different and, outwardly seen,
contradictory ways in christology. Sellers sees in Chalcedon the real meeting
point. (See the views of G, Florovsky and A. Schmemann in Dombalis, 1500 th
Anniversary, Kelly, Doctrines, p. 342.) Long ago Chalcedon had been considered
as the “prudent measure” or the “middle way”. As early as 1698 the Jesuit
author and the historian of Nestorianism, Doucin, had said: “[the Decrees of
Chalcedon] doivent etre considers comme le chef-d’oeuvre de la prudence cvan-
gelique. Nestorius n’y fut pas plus epargne qu’Eutyches. Les deux erreurs furent
egalementproscrites” (Hist. Nest., p. 313).

* The importance of that period from historical, literary, philosophical, and
theological points of view, has already been recognized and considerable attention
given to it by some prominent scholars. To give some names: J. Lebon, Mono-
physisme Severien ; Monophysisme Syrien; his Latin translations of Severus’ works;
Wigram, Separation ; R. Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse', many articles in Le
Mnseon ; Brooks with the edition of Severus’ Letters in P.O.; C. Moeller, Neo-
Chalciionisme-, and many others. (See for a short bibliography Lebon, Mono-
physisme Syrien p. 429.)

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

Soon after the conclusion of the Council, the clash between the
Chalcedonians and anti-Chalccdonians became strikingly appar-
ent. It was not now a mere theological dispute or a conflict be-
tween ecclesiastical authorities or patriarchal jurisdictions. In fact,
it did amount to a larger conflict which involved the whole eccles-
iastical policy of the Byzantine Empire. Nor was it confined to the
city of Constantinople; it spread over the Empire from Con-
stantinople to Edessa and eastwards, passing through Anatolia,
and from Antioch through Palestine down to Egypt. It soon be-
came a crucial problem, in fact, the problem of the time. 1

All the successors-of Marcian, Leo (457-74), 2 Basiliscus (475-6), 3
Zeno (476-91), 4 , Anastasius (491-518), 5 Justin (5x8-27), 6 Jus-
tinian (527-65), 7 without exception were engaged in some way or
another in the problem, which preoccupied Byzantine policy for
more than a century. 8 The emperors were somehow compelled

1 As Zachariah of Mitylene says, it “shook all the world ; and added evil upon
evil; and set the two heresies, one against the other, and filled the world with
divisions; and confounded the faith delivered by the Apostles, and the good order
of the Church; and tore into ten thousand rents the perfect Robe of Christ,
woven from the top throughout” ( Chronicle , bk. iii, ch. 1, p. 41).

2 See Evagrius, Ecd. Hist., bk. ii, ch. 9; Zachariah, Chronicle, bk. iv. ch. 5;
Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol.i, p. 322; Lebon, Monophysisme Stverien, pp. 21-5.

3 Evagrius, bk. iii, chs. 3-7; Zachariah, bk. v, chs. 1-3. Lebon, Monophysisme
Seuerien, pp. 25-9.

4 Evagrius, bk. ii, ch. 17, bk. iii, chs. 1, 8-24. Zachariah, bks. v and vi; Lebon,
Monophysisme SMrien, pp. 29-39; Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. i, pp. 402-4;
Vasiliev, Byzantine Empire, vol. i, pp. 107-9; Stein, Bas-Empire, pp. 20-7, 31-8.

5 Evagrius, bk. iii, chs. 29-30 if; Zachariah, bk. vii ; Lebon, Monophysisme
Severien, pp. 39-66; Duchesne, bglise VIe.siecle, pp. 1-42; Brchier, Anastase col.
1453-7; Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. i, pp. 111-12, 1 1 5 ; Stein, Bas-Empire,
pp. 1 57-76 ; Charanis, Anastasius.

6 Evagrius, bk. iv, chs. 1, 4, 6; Zachariah, bk. viii, chs. 1-3; Lebon, Mono-
physisme Severien, pp. 66-72; Duchesne, £glise Vie. sihle, pp. 43-77; Stein, Eto-
Empire, pp. 223-38 ; Vasiliev, Jwst/tt I, pp. 132-253.

7 Evagrius, bk. iv, chs. 10-11, 38-41; Zachariah, bk. ix, chs. 15-16; Lebon,
Monophysisme SMrien, pp. 73-8 (only for the first part of Justinian’s reign) ;
Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. ii, pp. 372-93 ; Stein, Bas-Empire , 376-95.

8 It was not solved even in the days of Justinian. Later emperors also faced the
same problem which had now lost its theological significance and become a prob-
lem of Church relationship on political grounds. (See Goubert, Successeurs de
Justinien-, Brehier, Successeurs de Justinien, pp. 486-7.)

4 6 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

to try to solve the problem that disturbed the internal situation of
the Empire and was even beginning to affect its foreign affairs.

The most remarkable aspect of all this story is that most of
these emperors either favoured the anti-Chalcedonian movement
(e.g. Basiliscus, Zeno, Anastasius) or directed their efforts to a
compromise solution. Either way meant overlooking the Coun-
cil of Chalcedon or reducing its importance, thus finally challeng-
ing its very ecumenicity and authority. Obviously, if they took
this line of policy it was mainly because of the rising strength of
the anti-Chalcedonians. This, in their view, could lead to a breach
within the Empire itself, thus weakening its power of resistance
to various invasions pressing in from so many sides, a fear, in fact,
that was justified in the later history of the sixth and seventh cen-
turies.

But if the emperors looked at this anti-Chalcedonian section
from a purely political point of view that does not mean that the
movement in itself was the expression of sheer political tenden-
cies within the Empire. First of all and basically it was a positive
view in christology; secondly, it was a movement opposing the
Chalcedonian christology for doctrinal reasons. And, therefore,
as we take it as a religious fact, without losing sight of its political
aspects and implications, we do not need to go into the political
consequences it had or into the political tendencies which were
associated with it. If we referred to the political approach of the
Byzantine rulers it was only to show that Monophysitism 1 soon

1 Now we use this term for the anti-Chalcedonian movement simply because
it has become the generally accepted term in the historical and theological
literature. But we should like to remark that it is not the appropriate or ade-
quate term to characterize the movement as a theological position or system,
for it is, first of all, an ambiguous term which may very easily lead — as indeedit has
led — to a false appreciation of the doctrinal attitude of the movement. G. Bardy
is right when he says: “Rien n’est plus difficile . . . que de defmir le monophys-
isme” ( Chakidoine , p. 309, n. 1). Then, secondly, it implies a counter-term,
“Dyophysitism”, which in fact has no current use in characterizing the Chalce-
donian position. Thus, without maintaining the right balance between the two
opposite terms, the exclusive use of one of them can become misleading. It has
already caused much confusion in understanding the doctrinal position of the so-
called “ Monophy site ’ ’ Churches. But, as w T e said, it is difficult to avoid it as its use

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

became such a widespread, influential, and dominant movement
in Eastern Christianity that it could cause anxiety to the emperors
for so many years after the Council of Chalcedon. 1

Having said this, let us turn now to our immediate purpose, i.e.
to indicate some aspects of post-Chalcedonian ecclesiastical his-
tory which arc closely linked with the characteristic features of
the Council of Chalcedon itself as stated above.

II. SOME ASPECTS OF

POST-CHALCEDONIAN HISTORY

Taking the same line of investigation as that adopted in the read-
ing of the Acts of the Council, we find in this movement simply
the continuation of the opposition which we discovered within
the Council itself to its formularies and actions.

That opposition had two grounds :

A. The Council of Chalcedon was not consonant with the
predominant Christological tradition of the East

The truth in this statement is clearly shown in the subsequent,
ultimately unsolved, difficulties which were felt by all those who
tried to reconcile the Monophysites and the Chalccdonians and to
restore unity within Church and Empire.

We can see this in the following points:

i. One of the striking aspects in post-Chalcedonian history is

has become widespread now. (See, about its ambiguities and various meanings,
Lebon, Monophysisme Sevhien, Intr., pp. xxii-xxiv; but particularly Jugie,
Eutyches, col. 1595-1601 ; Idem, Monophysisme, col. 2216-19.)

• “In large districts”, says Wigram, “the Council was rejected at once, and in
none, save only in Rome, was there any enthusiasm for its doctrine” (Separation,
p. 16). There were times when the Monophysites became “supreme and trium-
phant” (ibid., p. 63). They “were the winning party in the Church for a full gen-
eration after 45 1 (ibid., p. 147 ; cf Idem, Assyr. Church, pp. 144-7.)

48 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

the apparent readiness of the Eastern Christian leaders to come to
terms with the Monophysites without making the acceptance of
the Council of Chalcedon a necessary prerequisite.

When we read this history carefully it is not difficult at all to
see how the Eastern bishops and theologians were often, if not
always, prepared to reconsider the problem of Chalcedon and to
fmd a way to reconciliation apart from the decisions of the Coun-
cil of Chalcedon. Thus, they were always ready to welcome
imperial decrees and encyclicals intended to break down the dead-
lock between the two sides. One may easily argue that if they did
agree to those decrees or encyclicals it was because they wished,
sometimes in a servile manner, to show themselves loyal to the
imperial will either for fear of deposition or for expected favours
or benefits. It is obvious that erastianism played an important part
in the ecclesiastical history of the fourth and fifth centuries. But it
was not the most important factor in determining the decisions
of the bishops of the post-Chalcedonian period. We think that
there were other and more important reasons for this willingness
of the Eastern bishops to welcome imperial moves aimed at re-
union. First of all, we have to remember that they were living in
the midst of the troubles. Chalcedon had generated a crisis which
now was creating situations in Church life which were difficult to
face and control. Everywhere, in the East, opposition was being
organized which often got bishops appointed to the ecclesiastical
sees, sometimes with the support of the imperial authorities. In
short, for them Chalcedon had become a tormenting issue
through its consequences in the practical life of their own
Churches. This may explain why they were so eager to see the
problem solved and the troubles settled for more than purely
theological reasons.

But there is another reason for this their willingness, the most
important of all, to which we must give serious attention: they
were not happy themselves with the Chalcedonian terminology.
We saw what reaction was made to the reading of the Tome of
Leo in the Council itself . 1 We remember how uneasy the Eastern
1 See above, pp. 27 ff.

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

bishops were over the changing of some crucial terms in the form-
ulary of faith which later became the Chalcedonian Definition.
What was there felt generally and sometimes said openly proved
to be true in this post-Chalcedonian period . 1

Thus, when the bishops who had attended the Council of
Chalcedon returned to their sees, they found themselves strongly
opposed by their clergy, monks, and faithful laity. They were re-
garded as “traitors” to the Orthodox or traditional faith. They
had to be protected by the Government or yield to the opposition
by joining it, thus returning to their traditional positions. For ex-
ample, Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, on his return from Chalcedon
found his flock against him. So he came back to Constantinople
to seek help from the Emperor . 2 In Syria the opposition grew
rapidly and rather surprisingly, because Antioch had been the
stronghold of the Dyophysite School of christology apparently
favoured now at Chalcedon. This opposition grew to such an
extent that later, in the next century, Antioch became one of the
most important centres of the opposite, Monophysite, move-
ment . 3 The Egyptian bishops had rightly cried out at the Council
of Chalcedon: “We shall be killed!” The bloody scenes in Alex-
andria which followed the Council of Chalcedon proved this
to be true . 4 Here imperial decrees and the military support pro-
vided by the Government could not keep in office for long any
Patriarch of Chalcedonian inclination . 5 In Mesopotamia even

1 “Les craintes qu’ils [the Egyptian bishops] manifestaient au sujet de l’attitude
des populations de leurs dioceses n’dtaient que trop fondces ; la suite se chargea de
le montrer a 1 ’ Evidence ” (Lebon, Monophysisme Sfafriert, pp. 14-1 5).

1 See Evagrius, bk. ii, ch. 5 ; Zachariah, bk. iii, chs. 3-9. “ Soon he realized that
his conduct at Chalcedon had leached unexpected fury in Palestine. The majority
of his flock considered him an apostate who had betrayed his former faith ”
(Honigmann, Juvenal, p . 247 ; see the whole passage : pp . 247-57).

3 See Devreesse, Antioche, pp. 63-76 ; cf Bardy, Chalcedoine, p. 287.

4 To these bloody scenes the following words in the Henoticon refer: <f>ovovs -re
roXfeTjOrjyca fivpiovs kcci ai/iaraiv rr.Vryri; poXwBTjvou fiij jiovov rrfp yrjv aAA’ 1)817 *at
atrrov tov iepa. (SeeEvagrius, bk. iii, ch. 14; Bidez, p. 112.)

3 The case of Proteiius is quite eloquent in itself. (See Evagrius, bk. ii, ch. 8;
cf Zachariah, bk. iii, ch. 2, bk. iv, ch. 2.) On the troubles in Alexandria see
Zachariah, bk. iii, ch. 11, bk. iv, chs. 1-12, bk. v, chs, I, 7, 9-12.

so COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Monophysitism began to gain wide popularity in spite of the
previous expansion of Nestorianism. 1

All these events cannot be properly explained by reference to
political tendencies, namely on the rising nationalist feeling among
the peoples of the Patriarchates or provinces mentioned above,
nor by the servile subjugation of the bishops to the imperial de-
crees. Of course these factors must be taken into account in any
attempt to understand fully this growing strength of Monophy-
sitism; but they must be seen in the right perspective in which the
fundamental fact remains the theological dislike of and unfamil-
iarity with the new formulations ot the Council of Chalcedon.
To the ears of the Eastern bishops the Tome of Leo could never
sound perfectly orthodox. The soil in the East, being already sown
with Cyrilline thought, was not prepared to receive the foreign
seeds of Western christology as found in the Tome. Or, more
precisely, the theological milieu created by the dominance of Cy-
rilline over Nestorian thought could not accept the apparently
“Nestorianizing” terminology of Leo. This seems to us the essen-
tial point which is sometimes overlooked when the opponents of
the Council of Chalcedon are too easily described as men of
“ schismatical spirit”, “champions of nationalism” with a char-
acter of typical “oriental stubborness”, etc. G. Bardy is one of
those rare people who have seen beyond the outward appearance
of the things. Thus, speaking of the readiness of the Eastern
bishops to conform to the official policy of the Empire, he says :

Une telle unanimite de l’episcopat oriental pour signer tout ce qu’on
voulait n’avait evidemment rien de digne. De plus, elle pouvait
donner a reflechir a des hommes doues de quelque sens politique.
N’etait-il pas evident que si l’on acceptait le Tome de Leon et le

1 “Le mouvement monophysite gagna mime la Syrie euphratesienne et
l’Osrohene, autrefois le boulevard du dyophysisme. Quand Theodoret et Ibas
disparurent (457), la cause antiochienne ne trouva plus de champion dans ces
provinces” (Labourt, Christ . Perse, p. 260; cf pp. 133, 288). The sixth century
marked the conquest ofEdessa and the north-western regions of Mesopotamia by
the Monophysite movement . As Duval puts it, ‘ ‘ Le grand evenement religieux de
ce siecle fut la conversion au monophysisme des chretiens de la Syiie et de la
Mesopotamie” {Histoire d'Edesse, p. 216).

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON 51

concile de Chalcedoine, c’etait pour plaire aux autorites, alors que,
au fond du coeur, on etait beaucoup plus attache aux formules cyril-
liennes? Tous les evenements qui, depuis 451, s’etaient passes en
Orient ne demontraient-ils pas que le monophysisme attirait i lui
les meilleurs esprits, les homines les plus pieux, voire les theologiens
les plus savants ?'

An. outstanding example of this tendency among the Eastern
bishops is undoubtedly the attitude of Acacius, the Patriarch of
Constantinople (471-89). This is clearly seen in the famous Heno-
ticon (eVamicdv) promulgated by emperor Zeno in 482, but in-
spired or designed by Acacius. 2 The important points for us to
note here are the following features of the edict:

(a) It accepts the Nicene Faith, “the faith of the three hundred
and eighteen bishops”, as possessing the only binding authority
for all the Churches.

(i b ) It stresses also the Council of Ephesus (431) as having
followed faithfully those three hundred and eighteen holy
Fathers.

(c) It gives Cyril his right place in the brief formulation of its
doctrine, after having accepted and approved the orthodoxy of
his Twelve Chapters (Scyd/tevo 1 xal ra 8d>Sc/ca Ke<jxx\cua) which
were discarded at Chalcedon.

(1 d ) Chalcedon is not rejected in a direct way, but regarded as
something unnecessary for the maintenance of orthodoxy; it is
even charged in an indirect way as heterodox. Thus, after the
brief exposition of faith made in terms of Cyrilline christology it

1 Bardy, Chalcedoine, pp. 289-90. Duchesne, a severe critic of Cyril, had already
recognized the affinity of thought which these Eastern bishops showed with the
Cyrilline christology. Speaking on the achievement of the Council of Chalcedon,
he says “En somme les legats romains et l’cmpereur Marcien avaient retnporte
a Chalcedoine un succes contestable. Sans s’en douter aucunement ils avaient
blesse vivement la plupart des theologiens grecs, et, avec eux, beaucoup d’aines
religieuses qui pensaient ou plutot sentaient, en ce genre de choses, comme Cyrille
et son groupe” (Autonomies, p. 38).

2 See the text in Evagrius, bk. iii, ch. 14 (Bidez, pp. xn-14). P.G. t. 8 < 5 , col.
2620-5 (reprinted in D.T.C., t. iv, col. 2160-2); cfZachariah, bk. v, ch. 8. See a
thorough study from the Roman point of view by Salaville, Henotique. (I have
seen only the last part of the study.)

$2 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

adds: iravra 8e rov erepov rt tfrpovrjaavTa r] (f>povovvTCi, fj vvv rj
TTUiTTore, rj iv Ka\)(7)86vi rj o la Srj rrore avvoStp, avadepLarl^opev.

It is evident then, that even if this was not an anti-Chalce-
donian measure, strictly speaking, it was certainly an act which
compromised the authority of Chalcedon. Moreover, it was an
act which revived the pre-Chalcedonian christology as set forth
in Ephesus and spread mainly through the writings of Cyril and
his school.

The Henoticon in later years, namely during the reign of
Anastasius (491-518), became the recognized form of ortho-
doxy for the whole Empire, being supported by the imperial
authority.

Thus, while the East enjoyed a relatively peaceful situation, the
storm arose now from the West with the opposition to the Heno-
ticon by Rome. Hence the well-known “Acacian Schism”. And
this brings us to our second point in this section.

2. In our examination of the Acts of the Council we had no
difficulty in detecting the Roman influence during the whole
course of the sessions. That influence culminated in two major suc-
cesses: (a) It made the Tome of Leo accepted as Regula Fidei, a
kind of criterion of orthodox faith by which the orthodoxy of
any other statement on christology had to be judged, and ( b )
it brought the Defmitio in line with the Leonine terminology.
Leo now took the place of Cyril in the Council. So much was
easy to achieve. But it was not easy to take the place of Cyril in
Eastern Christianity, where Cyril had left deep and permanent
influences not to be removed by a conciliar decision or imperial
decree.

However, Rome regarded the Council of Chalcedon as the
victory of its own christology and, at the same time, a vehicle for
spreading its authority throughout the East. This only can explain
the strenuous efforts and the use of all possible means of influence
to preserve that victory throughout the course of the subsequent
events. Thus the interventions of Leo, and later of his successors,

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON 53

in the troubles caused by Chalcedon in Palestine, 1 Egypt, 2 and
Antioch 3 betray his fear of seeing his victory undermined by the
opposition. No compromise could give assurance to Rome,
which remained “staunchly Chalcedonian’’. 4

The attitude of Rome was made very clear in two cases in par-
ticular in the post-Chalcedonian history :

(a) When the Henoticon, designed by Acacius, was promul-
gated by Zeno, Rome went as far as to condemn Acacius, thus
causing a schism between itself and Constantinople which lasted
for about forty years (482-519). Rome opposed the Henoticon not
because the christology contained therein was heterodox but be-
cause it had ignored the Council of Chalcedon. That meant for
Rome, compromising the authority of the Council and, therefore,
undermining the Leonine victory. 5

The Acacian Schism has a great significance for us not only as a
mere phase in the growing tension between East and West or,
more precisely, between Constantinople and Rome, but also as a
sign of the fact that Rome regarded Chalcedon as a corner-stone
in the structure of Christian orthodoxy which could not be re-
moved or displaced, whereas, on the other hand, the same Chalce-
don did not mean the same thing to Eastern Christianity in that
period.

(b) The same insistence of Rome on the maintenance of the
Council of Chalcedon is manifested more clearly perhaps in the
next century at the time of the controversy on the Three
Chapters.

Justinian, who played such a decisive role in the history of
Eastern Christianity, especially in connection with the reconcil-
iation of the Monophysites and Chalcedonians, became fully
aware of the real difficulties, both doctrinal and practical, felt by

1 Kidd, Church History, vol. iii, p. 401 ; Batiffol, Sikge Apostolique, pp. 582-3.

1 Kidd, Church History, vol. iii, p. 403 ; Batiffol, Siege Apostolique, pp. 583-4.

3 Batiffol, Siege Apostolique, pp. 584-7. For the relationship with Constantinople
see Batiffol, Stige Apostolique, pp. 568-81 ; cfjalland, Leo the Great, pp. 321-49.

♦ Wigram, Separation, p. 19 ; cf Idem, Assyrian Church, p. 145.

3 See Lebon, Monophysisme Severien, pp. 31 ff; Duchesne, Church History,
vol. iii, pp. 348-9, 355-9; Bardy, Chalcedoine, p. 297.

54 COUNCIL Of CHALCfDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

the Monophysites. 1 He had behind him the experience of his pre-
decessors. Neither Rome nor the Monophysites should be dis-
regarded in any serious and hopeful attempt of reconciliation.
Therefore, the Nestorians or the “Nestorianizers” had to be sac-
rificed. Now, Nestorius had been equally condemned by the two
sides. But Chalcedon had been so favourable to the Nestorians or
“Nestorianizers” that the opposition of the Monophysites was
justified in that respect at least. So Justinian thought he had found
the real obstacle which had to be removed to smooth the way of
reconciliation for the Monophysites. That obstacle, i.e. Nestor-
ianism, as we saw earlier, was shielded behind the names of ex-
ponents other than Nestorius, namely Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa. The last two were
recognized and openly declared as orthodox at the Council of
Chalcedon. Theodore was already known as the great teacher
of Nestorianism. He had not been mentioned in the Council of
Chalcedon, but he had been refuted by Cyril. 2 Justinian was
determined that these three had to be condemned. 3 Hence the
problem of the Three Chapters.

Later, we shall consider the impact of Chalcedon on the Nes-
torian expansion in the East. Again, we are not concerned here
with the Three Chapters themselves, which were finally con-
demned by the Church in the second council of Constantinople
(5S3)- What is essential to our purpose is to note Rome’s contin-
uous defence of the Three Chapters both during the controversy
and after their official condemnation. The problem of Pope
Vigil’s attitude to the condemnation of the Three Chapters is in-

1 The disposition of the monophysite bishops who wrote to Justinian
freely after their return from exile is clearly seen in a passage in the Chronicle
of Zachariah (see ix, 15). Justinian must have taken into account such disposi-
tions.

2 Xoyos Kara ALohwpov tuLOKorrov Tapaoiv. 7 rpoz ra ©foSajpou. See fragments in
Pusey's edition of Cyril’s works, vol. iii, pp. 492-537.

3 “Malgre l’echec complet de ses tentatives de conciliation Justinien ne renonca
jamais a l’espoir de ramener ses peuples a l’unite religieuse par 1’extirpation des
anciennes heresies, par la condemnation des ecrits a tendances nestoriennes, dont
les auteurs avaient ete reconcilies par le concile de Chalcedoine” (Brehier, Jus-
tinien, p. 457).

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

deed a very long and complicated story . 1 But significant in this
history is the widespread Western opposition to the second Coun-
cil of Constantinople until the beginning of the seventh century . 2

Obviously, there is a considerable variety of opinions about the
significance of the condemnation of the Three Chapters, the atti-
tude of Pope Vigil, and the second council of Constantinople . 3
But the fundamental reason for that opposition to the condem-
nation in the West was that to condemn the Three Chapters and
especially the writings of Theodoret and Ibas would imply reject-
ing the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon ; 4 and Chalcedon
in Western eyes was untouchable, because it was the most solid
bulwark of their christology and influence.

B. The Council of Chalcedon revealed

close associations with Nestorian Christology

This was the second major problem which the Monophysites
faced in their attitude towards the Council of Chalcedon.

Hitherto we have tried to show how Chalcedon, being chiefly a
triumph of Western, Latin, christology, sounded so unfamiliar
and heterodox to the ears of the faithful holders of Eastern, Greek,
christology. But our argument would indeed lose its power if it
were left alone or taken in an absolute sense. In fact, the Council
of Chalcedon was held in the East and attended by Easterns. The
only non-Eastems were the four papal legates or representatives.
Therefore it would not be fair to appropriate the term “Eastern”
to the opponents of the Council. These latter did not represent all

1 See the whole story with its many complications in Duchesne, Eglise Vie.
siMe, pp. 156-218. Concise sketches are given in Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol.
ii, pp. 383-91; Stein, Bas-Empire, pp. 632-75. Among more recent and detailed
studies we must mention Devreesse, Ve. Concile; Idem, Essai, pp. 194-242;
Moeller, Ve. Concile; Amann, Trcis Chapitres col. 1868-1924, particularly col.
1888-1911.

2 See Brehier, Successeurs de Justinien, p. 494; Stein, Bas-Empire, pp. 676-83;
Devreesse, Essai, pp. 259-72.

3 The above mentioned articles can illustrate this point very clearly. See par-
ticularly Devreesse, Ve. Concile; Idem, Essai, pp. 194-242.

4 Every, Byzantine Patriarchate, pp. 64, 66 ; Devreesse, Essai, p. 208 .

}6 COUNCIl OF CHALCIDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

of the Eastern bishops among whom were those who stood by the
Council in one way or another.

Having made, then, this important point, we have to show the
limits of our terms of reference in order to avoid confusion and
misunderstanding. Thus, broadly speaking, those of the Eastern
bishops who supported the Council of Chalcedon without any
further restatement or reinterpretation of it were holders or in-
heritors of the Antiochene School of christology. Its opponents,
on the other hand, were representatives of the Alexandrian
School, which, as we saw, had taken the lead in Christian thought
at the time and, since Ephesus, had become dominant in theology.
And it is only in this sense that one can say that Eastern orthodox
christology as a whole was predominantly Alexandrian.

Now, we noted and underlined the sympathetic attitude of the
Council of Chalcedon towards theologians and Church leaders
who were constantly supporting and trying to propagate the
Antiochene tradition. That Chalcedon reaffirmed the position of
the Antiochene School is also shown in the attitude of the Nes-
torians themselves. It would be very valuable to see what the
Nestorians thought and felt about the Council of Chalcedon in
this post-Chalcedonian period.

There are three points which can give us some idea on their
attitude.

(<i) Most significant is the attitude of Nestorius himself towards
the Tome of Leo. In fact, during his exile he was kept in touch
with the development of the theological controversies in the Cap-
ital . 1 He knew all about the conflict between Eutyches and
Flavian, the condemnation of the latter, and the intervention of
Leo . 2 He was even provided with a copy of the Tome, which he
found perfectly orthodox :

Pour moi, lorsque j’eus trouve et lu cet ecrit je rendis graces & Dieu

de ce que l’Eglise de Rome avait une confession de foi orthodoxe

1 See Nau, Htradide, Intr., p. ix.

2 See his own account of the events in Nau, Heraclide, pp. 294-3 > 7 -

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON

et irreprochable, bien quelle eut ete disposee (lit. “ils etaient dis-
poses — les Romains”) autrement a mon egard . 1

Iu a further passage commenting again on the Tome of Leo, he
states more explicitly the similarity or identity of Leo’s doctrine
with his own. He says :

Comme ils avaient des prejuges contre moi et qu’ils ne croyaient pas
ce que je disais, comme si je cachais la verite et si j’en empechais
l’exacte expression, Dieu suscita un heraut qui etait pur de ce pre-
juge — Leon — qui proclama la verite sans crainte. Comme la pre-
vention (creee par) le (nom de concile) en imposait a beaucoup,
meme a la personne ( prosopcn ) des Romains et (les empechait) de
croire ce que je disais et qui etait reste sans examen, Dieu permit que
le contraire arrivat, qu’il retirat (de ce monde) l’eveque de Rome
(Celestin) lui qui avait eu le principal role contre moi au concile
d’Ephese et qu’il fit approuver et confirmer (par Leon) ce qui avait
ete dit par Teveque de Constantinople . 2

Another testimony to Nestorius’ own attitude to Leonine christ-
ology comes from his letter to the monks of Senoun . 3 Here,
again, he praises Leo and thanks God for the reaffirmation of his
doctrine:

Quant a ce qui a ete fait maintenant par le fidele Leon, chef des
pretres, qui a combattu pour la piete et s’est oppose a ce qu’on a
appele concile, j’en ailoue Dieu avec grande allegresse, et je passe tous
les jours dans Taction de graces. Sachez done en verite, vous aussi qui
etes instruits par Dieu, que mon enseignement — celui-meme de la
piete — est celui qui a ete defini par les hommes venerables dont je
viens de parler, par Flavien et Leon. A cause de celi, puisque tout le
monde tient mes doctrines et surtout les clercs, ce n’est que par envie
quej’ai etejuge, anathematise, et hai comme heretique . 4

Had he lived until the end of the Council of Chalcedon no doubt

1 Nau, Hfraclide, p. 298. 2 Nau, Heraclide, p. 327.

1 Translated from Syriac by Nau and published as an appendix to the French
translation of the Book of Heraclides. (See pp. 373 ff.)

4 Nau, Hhadidc, pp. 373-4; cf Loofs, Nestorius, pp. 99-101; Bethune-Baker,
Nestorius, pp. 189-96.

58 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

he would have hailed it as the official acceptance of his doctrine
in spite of the condemnation of his person . 1

( b ) After the Council of Chalcedon the Nestorians themselves
regarded its work as being the reassertion of their position. There
is no record of any official or formal acceptance of the Council as
such. In fact, they were not in a position to accept it officially.
They had been cut off from the life of the Church in the Byzan-
tine Empire. But it seems that they welcomed the Council as an
official move by the “Western” Church to restore justice by re-
habilitating bishops like Ibas and Theodoret. How could they be
against such a Council? Ibas was one of their greatest and most
efficient leaders and teachers. In fact, their sympathy with the
Council of Chalcedon is reflected in their official collection of
Synodical Acts and Canons. The Canons of the Council, the
Definition, and even the Tome of Leo are found there . 2 The
canons are classified together with those of Nicaea and Con-
stantinople . 3 Then, we must remember that whenever the
Byzantine emperors, such as Zeno and Anastasius, supported
Monophysitism against Chalcedonistn the Nestorians felt them-
selves involved in this policy by opposing it . 4

1 It is generally accepted now that his death falls between the convocation and
the actual meeting of the Council of Chalcedon. There have been several legends
invented by the Monophysites about his death. See the echoes as given by Tim-
othy Aelurus and Philoxenos of Mabboug in Nau, Hiraclide, Intr. pp. ix-xi; cf
Zachariah, bk. iii, ch. i. Of course, no one can take these legends seriously. On
one point, however, they all agree and in that they are supported by a Nestorian
source. (Briere, Ugende de Nestorius, p. 24); namely, that Marcian had invited
Nestorius to Chalcedon before his death. (Cf Jugie, Nestorius, pp. 60-2, 304-12.)

2 See Chabot, Synodicon Orientate, p. 6.

3 See Chabot, Synodicon Orientate, p. 61 1. The Council of Ephesus is excluded.
(See Chabot’s remark on p. 556, n. 1.)

4 We shall sec this in a more detailed form later when we come to study the
Armenian Church’s position. Here it seems worth quoting Duchesne and Labourt.
The first says: “Sans doute le nom de Nestorius avait ete associe a celui d’Eu-
tyches dans la liste despersonnes condainnees;maislaformule proclamee n’etait pas
pour deplaire a ses anciens allies: ils se reservaient de l’exploiter; ils esperaient
meme le faire asscz aisement” ( Autonomies , pp. 37-8). The second confirms this:
“Depuis l’avenement de Justin, la defaveur imperiale etait reservee aux mono-
physites et les chretiens persans circulaient plus librement sur le territoire de I’em-
pereur orthodoxe” ( Christ . Perse, pp. 164-5).

CHALCEDON AFTER CHALCEDON 59

(c) Thirdly, in the later years of the post-Chalcedonian period
when the problem of the Three Chapters arose again and troubled
the religious situation in the East, and when the second council of
Constantinople was convened by Justinian, the Nestorians again
felt that the tide was turning against Chalcedon and against
themselves. What they had gamed in the Council of Chalcedon
they lost in the second council of Constantinople. The work of the
former was destroyed in the latter. Their doctrinal teachers re-
habilitated in Chalcedon were now condemned as heretics. So
they resented the fifth “Ecumenical” Council as much as they
were delighted by the fourth. Finally they came to reject it cate-
gorically, thus bringing their separation from the Church in the
Byzantine Empire to completion. Now there was no way left
open to reconciliation . 1

Finally, we can see these two important features of the Council
of Chalcedon clearly reflected in the post-Chalcedonian literature,
especially in the writings of the Monophysite authors. The quick-
est glance at the existing literary data will immediately reveal
them. But within the limits of our survey we cannot embark on a
detailed examination of it. We take only as an example the Re-
futation of Timothy Aelurus, the complete text of which has been

1 “Personne n’ignore quel tumulte susciterent en Afrique et en Italie l’tfdit de
Justinien et sa confirmation par le concile cecumenique. Mais si remotion fut telle
dans les conrrees cn'i les auteurs des Trois-Chapitres etaient personellement peu
connus, on s'imaginera facilement quelle elle dut etre dans la Syric Orientale.
C’etait frapper au coeur l’Hglise persane que de denoncer comme heretique, les
docteurs antiochiens, mais surtout l’illustre Theodore le Comineutateur”
(Labourt, Christ. Perse, p. 275; see also pp. 276-8. Cf Wigram, Assyrian Church,
pp. 218 ff; Idem, Doctrinal Position, pp. 42-3 ; Every, Byzantine Patriarchate, p. 66;
Devreesse, Essai, pp. 272-7.)

Wigram in another book says that the second council of Constantinople “es-
tranged the almost reconciled Church of the Persian empire by its unjust condem-
nation of Theodore” ( Separation , p. 131). He is definitely convinced that this
council had erred by contradicting the earlier ones. And he makes his point in an
interesting passage which I quote: “So, the council of Constantinople counts
among the General Councils, and perhaps there is none of them concerning
which the Anglican feels more grateful for the statement of Article XXr that Gen-
eral Councils may err, and sometimes have erred. It might be an interesting intel-
lectual exercise to present a debating case against any of them, and in no case
would it be so easy as in this ” (Separation, p. 1 30).

60 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

preserved in an Armenian translation. Here, in this book, we have
an attempt to demonstrate how the doctrine of the Tome of Leo
and the Chalcedonian Definition were contrary to the orthodox
faith. Timothy does this first by quoting passages from them, sec-
ondly, by collating parallel sayings taken from heretics such as
Paul of Samosata and Diodore, but particularly Nestorius and
Theodoret, 1 thirdly, by refuting the passage, and fourthly, by
adducing passages from Orthodox Fathers in support of his own
refutation. It is, indeed, very significant to note that against the
fourteen chapters devoted to the refutation of the Tome of Leo,
there are only four devoted to that of the Chalcedonian Definit-
ion. This in itself shows how the Tome incurred so strongly the
stricture of the Monophysites, whereas the language of the Defi-
nition was not as foreign to them as that of the Tome.

1 The absence of any mention of Theodore is a very curious fact, which, to my
knowledge, has not attracted the attention of scholars.

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (i)
The Political Situation

We have noticed already in the Introduction of our study what
an important period the fifth century was for Armenian history in
general and for Armenian Church history in particular . 1

In order to understand the ecclesiastical situation and the theo-
logical milieu in which the Armenians came to reject the Council
of Chalcedon we must bear in mind the political situation of the
country. An adequate understanding of this political situation is
necessary for two reasons : first, it provides us with the framework,
as it were, of the ecclesiastical situation with which we are con-
cerned here ; secondly, it may clarify the political aspect of the re-
jection of the Council of Chalcedon. This is necessary because, as
we tried to show in the Introduction, scholars and church his-
torians have often tended to explain that rejection either purely or
primarily on political grounds. This survey will necessarily in-
clude an account, however brief, of the political history of Ar-
menia before the fifth century. Otherwise it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to understand the situation of that century.

Mgr Duchesne has a very suggestive remark on the history of
Eastern Christendom in his book Churches Separated from Rome,
which can serve us as a sound starting-point. He says :

In studying the origins of Christianity the Roman Empire alone is
usually taken into consideration. It was on its eastern frontier that
Christianity was bom, and the light of the Gospel moved westward
conquering those provinces subject to the Roman Empire. At all

1 See above, pp. 4-5.

62 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

events, this is the principal feature of its progress dwelt upon by his-
torians.

Nevertheless there were, outside the Roman Empire, important
States bounding it on the east; first of all the Empire of Parthia, then
the Kingdoms of Armenia and Ethiopia. 1

Armenia was, in fact, an independent kingdom during the first
four centuries of Christian history. It stood on the cross-roads
between the Roman — later, the Byzantine — Empire, on the one
side, and the Parthian — later, the Sassanid (Persian) — Empire, on
the other. This was a critical position, indeed, which is un-
doubtedly the chief cause of the tragedy of Armenian history.
More precisely, Armenia had been an independent, autonomous
country from the second half of the first century to the very end
of the first quarter of the fifth century. This whole period was
occupied by the reign of the Arsacid dynasty, which lasted longer
than the sister Parthian Arsacid kingdom in Persia.

The kingdom of the Arsacids [says Manandean, the greatest auth-
ority on Armenian political history] lasted for more than three cen-
turies as an autonomous State in Armenia, until the partition of the
latter between Persia and the Byzantine Empire (a.d. 66-384/87)

. . . Even after the partition of Armenia, the Arsacids ruled in the
Persian section of Armenia for about half a century : 387-428. So the
whole duration of this kingdom is counted as 362 years. 2

Politically, during the whole course of this period, Armenia
oscillated between the two sides. To put it in very general terms,
the political situation was that of either (a) a protectorate from the
Roman side or (b) a sort of overlordship from the Parthian side.
But in both cases Armenia was an independent, autonomous
country — at least, it was not an integral part of either side : it had
its own place and its own identity; it moved to one side or the
other according to its own interests; it fought this or that side for
its own purposes and with its own forces ; it was invaded by this or
that side, and in case of defeat made its own pacts. In all these
varying ways it expressed its self-determined, autonomous state of
existence.

1 Separated Churches, p. 13. 2 Critical History, p. 6.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: POLITICAL 63

The situation in Armenia in the period between a.d. 63 and 223
is well pictured and genuinely characterized by Rene Grousset.
He says:

Du traite de Rahndeia 1 a la chute de l’empire parthe (63-224)
l’Armenie avait maintenu son independance. Les cadets arsacides qui
y regnaient sous le protectorat romain n’avaient certes echappc ni
aux tentatives d’annexion romaine ni aux brusques interventions des
Parthes eux-memes, toujours disposes a considerer leurs cadets
d’Armenie comme de simples vice-rois; mais toujours aussi l’equi-
libre oriental selon la formule du traite de Rhandeia avait fini par
prevaloir, et de cet equilibre l’Armenie etait 1 ’heureuse beneficiaire. 2

In the cultural sphere, this situation resulted in a combination
of elements from two distinct civilizations : Iranian and Roman.
In fact, this situation provided a solid ground for “une double
penetration culturelle irano-romaine”. More explicitly, “La
formule du traite de Rhandeia — quand elle jouait correctement —
avait fait de l’Armcnic un terrain d’ entente oil les deux cultures se
recontraient’V This twofold basis of Armenian culture is a very
important fact which played a prominent part in the subsequent
development of Armenian Christian culture.

In the third and fourth centuries there occurred some changes
on the political scene which played a decisive role in the political
history of Armenia. Moreover, all these changes carried with them
religious and cultural consequences of great importance. Here, I
take into account only the important ones.

1. In 226 the rule of the Parthian Arsacid dynasty in Persia was
overthrown and replaced by the Persian Sassanid. Now the ruling

1 By this treaty (a.d. 63) the Romans recognized the autonomy of Armenia,
which would have its own king under the protection of the Roman empire. (See
Grousset, Histoire d’Arminie, p. 108.)
z Histoire d’Armenie, p. 1 13.

3 Ibid., p. in. The influence of the Iranian language and culture on Armenian
civilization is best studied by A. Meillet, largely quoted by Grousset. (See for the
references Histoire 1 V Armitiie, pp. 113-27.) Acarean’s History of the Armenian Lan-
guage illustrates this point more thoroughly. However, the work has not been at
my disposal to give the references. (See tazarean, Armenian Language, p. 166.)

64 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

dynasty in Armenia was a branch of the same Arsacid dynasty.
Therefore, as could be expected, this change on the Persian throne
was echoed in Armenia by a hostility towards the new Eastern
neighbour. That hostility was accompanied, for very natural
reasons, by a closer association with the Western neighbour, the
Roman Empire. The new master of the ancient Parthian King-
dom and the founder of the Sassanid Empire, Artasir I (224-41),
was contemplating the restoration of the former Parthian Em-
pire. He therefore planned to extend his rule over countries other
than those inherited from the overthrown Kingdom. Naturally,
Armenia was one of his first targets because of the kinship of the
ruling power with the overthrown dynasty and also because of
its independent status just on the western fringes of Persia, a situ-
ation which was dangerous, indeed, when looked at from the
angle of Sassano-Roman conflict. 1 All along the years between
226 and 387 this hostility remained the basic factor in Armenian
political history.

The first important result of this hostility was the gradual
attraction of the Armenians to the West, that is, to the Roman
and, later, the Byzantine Empire. In fact, after a very hard struggle
of nearly twenty years of continuous war against the Sassanid in-
vaders and after the final defeat of the Armenians, 2 the recovery
of independence by Tiridates III was made possible only by the
help of the Romans. 3 This was a second decisive step which drew

1 See Manandean, Critical History, p. 76.

2 This happened in 252/53. Shapuh, the successor of ArtaSir, became the con-
queror of Armenia. (See for details Manandean, Critical History, pp. 84 ff; Grous-
set, Histoirc d’Armbiie, p. 1 1 5.)

a The date of this recovery has been a matter of dispute. We need not go into
it, though it has a great importance in determining the date of the official conver-
sion of Armenia to Christianity. However, the two main suggestions have been
287 and 298. It must be said that not only the chronology but the history of this
period is somewhat confused. There had been more than one war between Rome
and Persia during this period. Accordingly, the political situation in Armenia
underwent changes which were the natural consequences of this fluid and un-
settled situation. Therefore the recovery of independence itself cannot be
understood as a single event, but as the result of a process of struggle, victories, and
defeats. Thus, in 287 the Persians ceded Armenia to Diocletian. Armenia became

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: POLITICAL 65

the Armenians nearer to the West and, consequently, took them
further away from the East in their political orientation.

2. The national adherence of Armenia to Christianity’ laid
firmer and deeper foundations for that orientation. It is difficult
to understand that adherence merely as the outcome of such a
Western political orientation, as some scholars are inclined to do . 2
Of course the growth of Christianity within the Roman Empire,
with all the impact that it had on the Empire itself, contributed to
the shaping of a more sympathetic attitude towards Christianity
by the Armenian King, Tiridates III. But the fact of the presence
of Christianity in Armenia was the decisive factor in that official
move. As we shall see, the propagation of the Christian faith was
making such a rapid advance in Armenia that the Christian re-
ligion was becoming an important power in the country, and the
ruler could not disregard it, because it was growing contin-
uously.

Armenia, thus, turned once for all to the West. That orien-
tation was now irrevocable after the acceptance of Christianity
with all its cultural implications. However, we must note that the
adherence of the country to Christianity did not coincide with an
integration of the country into the world of the Roman Empire.
Armenia continued to stand in its traditional position of inde-
pendence between the Persian and, now, the Byzantine Empires.

All through the fourth century Armenia’s oscillation between
the Persian and Byzantine alliances constitutes the central aspect

once more independent under the protectorate of Rome. Later the wars were re-
newed. In 298 the Persians were once more compelled to cede Armenia to the
Romans. Tiridates III now became the undisputed master of Armenia. (See for all
the complicated issues involved in this story Manandean, Critical History, ch. 7,
pp. 91— 1 15; cfGrousset, Histoire tl'Armenie, pp. 1 13-17.)

1 Again, the date of the official acceptance of Christianity as State religion in
Armenia has always been a matter of acute controversy. To put it in the widest
possible expression it has been fixed somewhere between 276 and 3 13. It is a long
and complicated story with much confusion and misunderstanding mixed up with
it. The generally accepted date is 301. See for a fuller treatment of the problem,
Toumebize, Histoire, pp. 428-44; cf Manandean, Critical History, pp. 124-5.

* See, for example, Manandean, op. cit., pp. 1 17-18.

66 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

of its history . 1 Thus it was overrun alternately by its two strong
neighbours, the new representatives of the traditional permanent
political competition in Eastern history; sometimes, with great
skill, as well as perils, it divided its loyalty between both sides;
sometimes it inclined to the one side and at other times to the
other. But in all and any case it succeeded in its traditional role :
to maintain its self-governing status or, perhaps more precisely,
its internal freedom and autonomy.

Here, on this internal scene of its life, the political struggle was
reflected and materialized in a conflict between two major forces:
(a) the Kingdom — the State with its centralizing policy, and (b)
the Feudal Principalities ( Naxararowt'iu/nk ') with their centri-
fugal tendencies.

In the religious sphere, this struggle was translated into a con-
flict between the old and yet persistent paganism and the new and
triumphant Christianity. In fact, it had been impossible to eradi-
cate altogether the dominant pagan religion with its centuries-old
institutions and traditions by a royal decree of adherence to Chris-
tianity, or even by the strictest anti-pagan measures taken by the
State on practical grounds. The fourth-century history of the
Armenian Church is full of examples which illustrate this struggle.
The slightest look at the book of P‘awstos Biwzandaci can make
us understand fully the extent as well as the importance of this
struggle . 2

The struggle both on political and religious grounds was car-
ried on by two distinct groups or factions. To put it in a most
general form the Iranophiles followed the policy of Persian over-
lordship with the revival of the pagan religion or the acceptance
of Mazdaism in Armenia as their line of political and religious
activities. Whereas, the Romanophiles sympathized with Byzan-

i See a study of the fourth century Armenian history in its relations with Rome
by Baynes, Rome and Armenia; he has used the data provided by P‘awstos Biwzan-
dafi. A more thorough study is that of Asdourean, Armenien und Rom.

1 See for example bk. iii, chs. 3, 14; bk. iv, chs. 13, 14, 23, 24, 59. In these and
many other passages the political and religious factors seem to have been com-
bined together to counter-balance the increasing tide of Christian influence in the
country.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: POLITICAL 67

tiuin politically and became defenders of Christianity, though
sometimes even fearing its strength and trying to reduce it or
bring it under their influence and control. 1

In the fourth century Armenia can be likened to a boat beaten
by the huge waves of the Persian and Byzantine Empires. Apart
from the perils of the waves themselves, the boat itself was not
strong and safe, because the two main political orientations with-
in it tried to navigate it in opposite directions. This internal oppo-
sition weakened immensely the power of resistance to the Arsacid
Kingdom and therefore became a serious threat to the mainten-
ance of the autonomous state of the country. The fall of the
Arsacids was being prepared!

The Church could not stand apart from these changes and
troubles. The official authority' of the Church supported naturally
the Romanophile side; but there were sections within it which
sympathized with the Iranophiles. This situation was to play a not
unimportant part in the coming doctrinal controversies and
ecclesiastical dissensions, as we shall see in the next chapter.

3. A major change in this situation in the last years of the fourth
century was the partition of Armenia between Persia and Byzan-
tium (387/90). According to the treaty signed between Shapuh
III and Theodosius I in Constantinople 2 Armenia was now di-
vided into two sections: the eastern part of the country was left
to the Persians and the western districts were annexed to the
Byzantine Empire. However, both sections were governed by two
kings of the same Arsacid dynasty (Xosrov IV for Persarmenia
and Arsak III for the Byzantine Armenia, both of them being
vassal-kings under the two great powers). The largest and the
most important section of Armenia was that left to the Persians 3 —

1 See Manandean, Critical History, pp. 224-6.

1 See Manandean, Critical History, pp. 232-3 ; Asdourean, Armenien und Rom.,
pp. 3 16-321. {For other references see above, p. 4, n. 2.)

3 A fifth-century historian, Lazar P‘arpeci, speaks about this partition and des-
cribes the Persian section of Armenia, namely the province of Ayrarat in an elab-
orate and touching passage. (See bk. i, chs. 6-7; Langlois, Historians Armeniens,
vol.ii, pp. 262-3.)

68 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

actually four-fifths of the country, as Manandean says. 1 In this
section, the Arsacid kingdom remained in power for about
forty years, whereas in the Byzantine section after the death of
Arsak III, a Byzantine military ruler was appointed by Byzan-
tium. 2

In the following years the weight of Armenian history fell
upon the Persian side. The centre of the Church was now there,
and the western regions were totally integrated into the Byzan-
tine world. So, when now we speak of Armenia it is this Persian
Armenia that we have in mind.

4. The partition, however, did not change the autonomous
state of the country. On the contrary, the Armenians here tried
to consolidate their independent situation by establishing their
own national culture through a newly invented alphabet and the
immediately subsequent flowering of a national literature. Later
in this chapter we shall return to this important aspect of Armen-
ian history and try to show its consequences for the Armenian
Church and nation in the fifth and following centuries.

For forty years the Arsacid kingdom was maintained in Ar-
menia (387/90-428). When, at the instigation of the Armenian
rival feudal princes ( Naxarark ‘) it was abolished in 428 by the Per-
sians, a new system of government was established in its place.
The Persian King of Kings appointed a governor — Marzban —
for Armenia, whose main function was to survey the situation
and to keep it under tight control in order to avoid the possibility
of any attempt at rebellion or communication with the Byzantine
Empire. 3

The abolition of the Armenian Arsacid kingdom was an impor-
tant phase in the development of the Sassanid policy towards

1 Critical History, pp. 239-40. (See Map 1 .)

* The political significance of this change and its consequences for the history of
Eastern Christendom are pointed out in an excellent passage by Rene Grousset ;
the whole problem is seen and judged here, in the context of the general history of
the East, of which Grousset is undoubtedly one of the most competent experts.
See the passage in Histoire d'Armenie, pp. 165-6.

3 On the status and functions of the Marzban see Christensen, Iran Sassanide,
pp. 136-7.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: POLITICAL 69

Armenia. That policy was aimed ultimately at the total integra-
tion of Armenia into the Sassanid world. This was only possible
through a break-ofF or complete separation of Armenia from the
Byzantine Empire. Isolation would be the first stage of the policy.
That negative stage, however, would provide them with the pos-
sibility of an easier cultural and religious assimilation of the
country by the Sassanid Mazdaean Empire, with all that that im-
plied. 1 By the partition of Armenia the first stage of their policy
had been achieved politically. The abolition of the Arsacid king-
dom now gave them the opportunity of a wider and deeper pene-
tration into the country through the establishment of the new
government of Armenia ruled by a Persian Marzban. 2 3

In order to achieve this assimilation the Persians had to use
Iranophile elements in the country. These were mainly (a) Nax-
arars who sympathized with the Sassanid policy and culture, and
(b) religious leaders who sympathized with the Syriac tradition
now being favoured by the Persian Empire in order to oppose it
to the Byzantine Church and to hinder any influence from the
latter on the Christians under its rule.

It is relevant here to note how strong was the anti-Byzantine
mood in Sassanid policy and what consequences it had for the
Armenian Church. “The Persian rulers”, says Xorenaci, “did not
permit any of the inhabitants in their territories to study Greek
literature, but only the Syriac language ”,3 But we shall speak of this
later when we look into the ecclesiastical situation more closely.

1 During the reign of Yazdgard II (438-57) this idea had become a definite con-
viction and culminated into a firm policy for the Sassanid Government. As
Christensen says: “Le progres du christianisme en Armenie ctait depuis long-
temps une source d’inquietude pour le gouvemement de l’lran. On comprenait a
Ctesiphon que la possession de l’Armenie resterait precaire, tant que les diffe-
rences religicuses existaient, et l’idee d’employer des mesures de coercition eut un
avocat puissant dans la personne de Mihr-Narseh [i.e. the director of the Persian
foreign policy of the time] ( Iran Sassanide, p. 284; cf Hannestad, Relations, pp.
433 - 8 ).

2 However, that government was only external and the Armenians still
had a large measure of autonomy in their public life. This is very well illustrated
by Manandean. (See Critical History, pp. 285-7.)

3 Xorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 54.

70 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

5. This policy could not remain unanswered by the Armenians
now firmly established in their faith and, at the same time, in a
strong consciousness of national identity fostered especially
through the cultural achievements of the century. In fact, all the
measures taken by the Persian Government with a view to achiev-
ing this assimilation met strong resistance on the part of the Ar-
menians. After the fall of the Arsacid kingdom, the fifth-century
political history of Armenia is the history of this resistance move-
ment, now strengthened by religious, cultural, and national fac-
tors.

The first important outburst of that resistance was the battle of
Avarayr, afterwards and even now known as one of the greatest
moments of Armenian history and commemorated by the Ar-
menian Church as a “holy war” fought in defence of the Chris-
tian faith in Armenia. 1

It is worth noting that it occurred in May 451, in the very same
year that the Council of Chalcedon was convened, preceding the
latter by four months.

Actually, the Armenian forces were defeated by the huge ele-
phant-built army of the Persian Empire. Although the battle did
not stop the policy of dechristianization and assimilation carried
on with such skill and firmness by the Persian rulers, 2 yet, at the

1 Those who lost their lives in that battle, or in the course of the later resistance
movement are venerated as martyrs and saints in the Armenian Church. They are
called Vardanank' and Levondeank' after the names of the chief of the army, Vardan
Mamikonean, and of the priest Levond who was the inspiring figure of the whole
movement, the “Peter the Hermit” of Armenian history. The story of this battle
is related by a contemporary historian, EliSe, History of Vardan. (See Bibliography
for the English translation.) The second book of P'arpefi also is devoted to the
history of this battle. (SecP'arpeci, bk. ii, chs. 20-48 ; Langlois, Historiens Armeniens,
vol. ii, pp. 183-251.) For a concise study of it in French see Mecerian, Bilan ; cf
Hannestad, Relations, pp. 437-8.

2 Though it must be accepted that the policy of Persia underwent a considerable
change, without losing sight of their chief aim they nevertheless changed their
method in achieving it. Immediately after their military victory over the Ar-
menian army, they were compelled to change tactics or strategy in view of the
demonstration of the strong determination of the Armenians in standing firm to
their faith and national consciousness. (See Christensen, Iran Sassanide, p. 288; cf
Grousset, Histoire d'Armenie, p. 211.)

historical background: political 71

same time, their defeat was not the end of the resistance. This con-
tinued through isolated, individual attacks on the Persian forces
stationed in Armenia for the establishment and consolidation of
Persian rule. So a kind of guerilla warfare swayed over Armenia
for about three decades after the battle of Avarayr. The famous
Mamikonean House was the chief organizer or the pioneer of this
resistance movement with the collaboration of other feudal
princes of various Armenian provinces.

6. Finally, another great figure of the same House, Vahan
Mamikonean, achieved the aim of the resistance when he com-
pelled the Persians to recognize the full autonomy of Armenia. 1
He himself was nominated Marzban. Thus, he, in his turn, recog-
nized once more the overlordship of Persia after having secured
the freedom of the Armenian people in their faith and national
culture. This happened in 485. The situation of Armenia during
the reign of Vahan Mamikonean is very well pictured by
Grousset:

Le Marzbanat de Vahan Mamikonian dura de 20 a 25 ans (de 485 a
505 ou 510). Ce fut une veritable royaute sans le titre. On peut seule-
ment regretter qu’il n’ait pu profiter des rirconstances pour retablir
en sa faveur la monarchic ha'ikane. Il en fut evidemment empeche
par la crainte d’une rupture avec la Perse, sans doute aussi par suite
de la jalousie latente des autres families feodales envers eelle des
Mamikoniens. Du moins, son long gouvernement presida-t-il dans
tous les domaines a une veritable restoration nationale. 2

With this period of complete autonomy and peace under the
reign of Vahan Mamikonean we conclude our survey of the poli-
tical situation of Armenia prior to the rejection of the Council of
Chalcedon. This period was the decisive moment of Armenian
Church history as regards its position vis a vis the Council of

1 See the full story of the event and the three conditions put forward by the
Armenians in P‘arpepi, bk. iii, ch. 89; Langlois, Historiens Armeniens, vol. ii,
PP- 354 — 5 )- A French summary is in Mecerian, Bilan, pp. 96-7; cf Christensen,
Iran Sassanide, p. 295; Labourt, Christ. Perse, p. 1 54.

1 Histone d’Armenic, p. 230.

72 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Chalcedon. In fact, it was during this period that the Chalce-
donian problem came to the official consideration of the Armen-
ian Church and the attitude towards it was already formed.
During the reign of Catholicos Babgen it was to be sanctioned
through a conciliar act which was afterwards repeated and re-
affirmed in all subsequent dealings with the Chalcedonian prob-
lem.

Now, as we come to conclude this chapter, we have to make
the following point by way of summary and conclusion. The
autonomous political and national situation of Armenia was
maintained all through the first five centuries of Christian history.
That autonomous situation was not the same at every stage in the
course of these five centuries. It took different forms of self-gov-
ernment; it knew different degrees of freedom; and yet, there was
something common in all of these various forms and varying de-
grees : the basic fact of being a distinct country with a special
status of self-recognition and self-expression. Armenia never be-
came an integral or constituent part of either the Roman or By-
zantine Empires, nor of the Parthian or Sassanid Empires.

In order to show what this situation of Armenia could mean
for the doctrinal orientation of the Armenian Church, I suggest
the comparison of this state of autonomous, semi-independent
existence with the political situation of the Christian Church
within the Persian Empire. It is not difficult to appreciate that it
was not at all easy for the Persian rulers to impose on the Ar-
menians the anti-Byzantine attitude in their policy as they did
upon the Persian Church politically integrated into the Persian
Empire, which, because of that integration, followed strictly the
Persian policy in its attitude to the Church within the Byzantine
Empire. It must be noted with special attention that it was this
autonomous situation which served as an important factor in the
preservation of orthodoxy in the Armenian Church against the
Nestorian advance in and around the Persian Empire; an expan-
sion which, encouraged by the Persian rulers, was becoming
alarmingly dangerous for the Armenian Church, as we shall see.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND; POLITICAL 73

In the context of this survey one can see how misleading may
be any interpretation of the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon
by the Armenian Church based on purely political grounds. In-
deed, without appreciating this particular political situation of
Armenia it is all too easy to imagine that the Armenian Church
took its decision with regard to the Council of Chalcedon on pol-
itical lines as suggested or imposed by its Persian masters. More
explicitly, at first sight, it would seem quite logical to say that if
the Armenians pronounced against the Council of Chalcedon it
was only because they had to show their political loyalty to their
Persian rulers by a positive expression of an anti-Byzantine atti-
tude. Or, in the opposite way, that they rejected the Council of
Chalcedon because they wished to stand by the official Byzantine
religious policy which, at the end of the fifth century, was marked
by an anti-Chalcedonian colour.

What we may conclude from the political and national situ-
ation which we have just reviewed above, can be expressed as
follows. The Armenian Church in the fifth century confronted a
political dilemma which it had to solve in one way or another.
The dilemma was this : on the one hand, the country in which it
was situated was under the Persian overlordship which professed
another religion to Christianity, and so it had to show its loyalty
to the Empire in political matters and yet to resist its policy of
integration and assimilation. On the other side of Persian Ar-
menia there was the Byzantine Empire which had appropriated
to itself parts of the Armenian territory and with which it had
a close relation in terms of religious and cultural affinities. The
dilemma was an acute one. The creation of a national literature
was the natural way, perhaps, to face it. However, that new cul-
tural movement did not estrange the Church from the Christian
world in the West, because for a long time during and after the
translation of the Holy Bible and the Church Fathers, the Ar-
menians maintained their relations especially with the centres of
Greek Christian culture, mainly with Constantinople and Alex-
andria. The communion of faith was never compromised or
shaken between the two Churches, the Armenian and the Greek.

74 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

The Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus were accep-
ted and held firmly as the basis of orthodoxy. On the other hand,
that new cultural movement strengthened the Armenian Church
in its firm stand against the Persian policy of integration.

Now, all these are expressions of an autonomous Church and
people. They accepted the Council of Ephesus not because the
Roman emperor imposed it on them, but because they made their
own decision about it and judged it as orthodox. They rejected
Nestorianism in spite of all the Persian influence and Syrian infil-
tration and propaganda in. their country, because they had doc-
trinal objections to it. In the same way, when they faced the
Council of Chalcedon they were able to take their stand in accor-
dance with their doctrinal and ecclesiastical tradition.

In short, the political situation of their country provided them
with the possibility of free action. In other words, the political
conditions did not dictate their doctrinal attitude. They were able
to avoid being mere victims of their political situation.

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (2)
The Ecclesiastical Situation
Before the Council of Ephesus

Now let us turn to the religious aspects of the fifth-century
history of Armenia and look at them more closely in order to
appreciate the religious atmosphere of the time with which we are
primarily concerned here.

We must again go quite a long way back to the origins and the
early expansion of Christianity in Armenia, because many im-
portant aspects of its fifth-century history' can be traced back to
their origin and formation. We must therefore understand them
in the light of the process of their formation.

This survey — very short, indeed, as we intend it to be— will
first bring us to the end of the fourth century ; more precisely, to
the time of the partition of Armenia (3 87/90). Then we shall study
the fifth century through a more detailed investigation by div-
iding it into three periods based on the doctrinal history of the
century :

1. Before the Council of Ephesus. (The first three decades of the
fourth century.)

2. Between the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon
(43i-5i).

3 . After the Council of Chalcedon (451-508).

76 COUNCIL OF CHAtCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

I. THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES

It is always difficult to speak of the origins of Christianity in
Armenia in clear terms, to give definite names and dates, or to
show the various ways in which the Christian faith was spread
there. Not only is authentic historical evidence weak and insuffi-
cient, 1 but also the traditions are mixed up in such a compli-
cated way that it is difficult to distinguish clearly between fact and
fantasy, between reality and imagination.

The traditional claim for the apostolic origins of Armenian
Christianity has been questioned on historical grounds. The ex-
isting tradition concerning the preaching of the Apostles St Thad-
deus (John 14. 22-4) and St Bartholomew (John 1. 43-51) in
Armenia have come to our knowledge through written docu-
ments which are hagiographical pieces of literature compiled in
later centuries. 2 Therefore it is not possible to rely on them as
authentic historical documents. These arguments of course, form
a quite strong challenge to the traditionally assumed historical
apostolicity of the Armenian Church. Yet, on the other hand, it
is equally difficult to reject altogether the tradition of the apos-
tolic preaching in Armenia. It is, indeed, very difficult to discredit
that tradition as completely void of any degree of historicity and
to interpret it as pure invention. 3

We think that the tradition deserves a higher degree of prob-
ability than that which some scholars are ready to give it. The
limits of our study cannot permit us to embark here on the reasons
for our assumption. But, besides the basic and most important fact

1 It must be remembered that there was no Armenian literature in Armenian
language during these first four centuries. It is not surprising therefore, that we
have no contemporary written document in Armenian concerning the begin-
nings of Christianity in Armenia. All the Armenian writings on this subject date
from the fifth century onwards.

* See Abelean, Literature, pp. 360-2. On the formation of the tradition of St
Thaddeus’ preaching in Armenia see Tournebize, Histoire, pp. 401-13 (in a special
chapter on the conversion of Armenia). See also Ormanean, Azgapatum, col. 21-S
(on Bartholomew’s tradition, col. 27-38); Hafuni, Important Problems, pp. r-88;
Kiwleserean, Armenian Church, pp. 171-248 (a thorough answer to Hacuni’s
criticisms).

5 Cf Ter-Minaseanf, Arm. Kirche, pp. 1-2.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 77

that this tradition has in itself the character of being an echo of
something already existing, there are two points which give
weight, we think, to our assumption.

i. The neighbouring countries on the north-western frontiers
of Armenia, Cappadocia and Pontus, had been evangelized by
people of the first Christian generation. In fact, Asia Minor was,
with Syria, the first place outside Palestine where the Christian
faith was preached. Not only were its central and western parts
soon conquered by Paul in the name of Christ, but its eastern re-
gions were also touched. In i Peter (i. i, 2) we read: “Peter, an
apostle of Jesus Christ, to the exiles of the dispersion in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, chosen and destined by
God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus
Christ and for sprinkling with his blood, may grace and peace be
multiplied to you.”

The remarkable zeal for evangelism so characteristic of this
first generation would naturally lead people towards the east,
where the first country to be entered was Armenia, Moreover,
Armenia had already had a long history of relationship with these
two countries in the pre-Christian era, and many Armenians had
settled in them and maintained steady and regular contacts with
their own country . 1

Secondly, it is highly probable that the eastern parts of Syria
and the northern parts of Mesopotamia, i.e. the southern borders
of Armenia, had been reached by the first apostolic missionaries.
From the earliest times of Christian history, Christianity had
gained a firm foothold in Edessa which, in its turn, became and
remained for subsequent centuries a centre of Christian expansion
towards the east . 2

It is difficult, as Duval says , 3 to give a picture of the earliest
situation of Christianity in Edessa. But it can be easily accepted

1 The Roman road system was, indeed, so efficient that contacts between
countries were easily and regularly made. (See Ramsay, Asia Minor, pp. $1-62,
particularlypp. 5 $-6, 58; cfldem. Church Rom. Emp., pp. 11-12.)

2 See Duval, Histoire d’Edcsse, p. 81.

3 Ibid., p. 107.

jS COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

that second-century events and aspects of Christian life there,
namely the emergence of various sects of gnostic character, 1 are
of such importance that they can assure us of a beginning of Chris-
tianity in Edessa as early as the first century. If we put aside all the
legendary story of King Abgar’s correspondence with Christ, we
cannot do the same with the tradition of the apostolic preaching
in Edessa as such. The legendary character of Abgar’s conversion
is no reason for denying the existence of Christianity in Edessa in
the first century.

All this can be said in terms of probability and not of historical
certainty, which needs the affirmation of positive authentic evi-
dence. We need not go into the complicated details of this story,
which has already drawn attention from so many scholars. 2
What is relevant to our purpose and what we can accept with a
certain degree of historical authenticity is the basic fact that Chris-
tianity existed in Edessa or in the Kingdom of Osrohene as early
as the first century. “There can be no doubt”, says Professor
Voobus, “that the Christian faith had been established before the
end of the first century in Edessa and also in Osrohene.” 3 And, as
Tournebize says:

De L’Osrohene la foi avait sans doute rayonne assez tot vers Test;
entre Edesse et l’Armenie la distance n’etait pas grande. Bien long-
temps avant Bar Hebraeus, les alliances et les compenetrations fre-
quentes entre Parthes, Perses, Edesseniens et les Armeniens avaient
justifie la reflexion suivante du celebre patriarche monophysite:
“Parthes ou Perses, Parthes ou Edesseniens, Parthes ou Armeniens,
e’est tout un.” (Assemani: IV. Dissert, de Syr. Nestor., p. 425, 4 )

’ “Vers le milieu du 11 siecle, les Maircionites etles Valentiniens, et peut-etre
encore d’autres sectes gnostiques, comptaient des adeptes a Edesse. Avec Bar-
desane surgit une nouvelle heresie de meme nature” (Duval, Histoire d' Edesse,
p, 1 14; cf Voobus, Syrian Asceticism, pp. 31-61).

2 Besides Duval and among many others see Tixeront, £glise <T Edesse', Martin,
£g!ise d' Edesse ; Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, Hayes, iscole d' Edesse ; Voobus,
Syrian Asceticism.

3 Syrian Asceticism, p. 6; see pp. 3-10; cf Hayes, Ecole d’Pdesse, pp. 24-7; Bur-
kitt, Eastern Christianity, pp. 33-5 (the traditional story, pp. 10-32).

4 Histoire, p. 406.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS

2. The later rapid advance of the Christian faith in Armenia in
the second and third centuries — the result of which was un-
doubtedly the national acceptance of Christianity as the official
religion of the country at the end of the third or in the beginning
of the fourth century — cannot be understood without postulating
an early beginning. In fact, the adherence of Armenia to Chris-
tianity was not, strictly speaking, a single action, i.e. the result of
the preaching of St Gregory the Illuminator. As Leon Arpee says,
“The conversion of Armenia was not an event but a process.” 1
Here also, second-century events as echoed in the documents of
later centuries assure us of an early expansion of Christianity in
Armenia. Tournebize, who has used all the fragmentary and
scattered information about the pre-Gregorian period of Armen-
ian Church history, is quite convinced that in the second century
Syrian and Greek missionaries had preached the Gospel in Ar-
menia. 2 He concludes his investigation with the following state-
ment:

En resume, I’evangelisation de l’Armenie apparait comme unc
simple hypothese pour le premier siecle; mais 1’hypothese devient
de plus en plus probable £t mesure qu’on avance dans le second; elle
se pose a nos yeux comme un fait a peu pres incontestable vers les
annees 190-195. 3

Having thus hinted at the history of the beginnings of Armenian

1 Armenian Christianity, p. 9.

2 See Histoire, p. 416.

3 Histoire, pp. 417-18. Cf Vailhd, Eglise Armenicnne, p. 193. He has used ex-
clusively the evidence provided by foreign sources — Eusebius ix, 8 ; Athanasius, De
Incarn, P.G., t. xxv, col. 188 ; Sozomen, ii, 89. It is not, therefore, scientifically
justifiable to treat the apostolic or early origins of Armenian Christianity as a pure
legendary story. The statement of a scholar of such a high standing as H. Leclercq
is more than ridiculous ; he says : “ On ignore tout, ou presque tout, des debuts du
christianisme en Armenie ; des lors il faut s’attendre 1 y voir germer des lcgendes et
des revendications sans aucun fondement historique. Puisqu’il y a quelques
annees seulement on re'vendiquait pour saint Thomas la predication de 1 ’Evangile
en Amerique, on ne peut etre surpris d’entendre certains anciens auteurs armeniens
reclamer pour leur pays les apotres Thadde et Barthelemy ”. ( Lilt. Arm ., col. 1576.)
What an ingenious association!

80 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Christianity , 1 let us consider some important aspects of it and
draw out their implications for our immediate purpose. The fun-
damental aspect to be taken into account is the twofold character
of the early state of Christianity in Armenia: (u) “Greek-type”
Christianity introduced from the north-western borders and ( h )
the “Syriac-type” Christianity introduced from the south-
western sides. From all the evidence at hand it appears that up to
the time of St Gregory the Illuminator the Syriac-type Christi-
anity was more widespread and, therefore, more influential es-
pecially in the southern regions of Armenia than the Greek-type
Christianity which existed most probably in the north-western
provinces. These two streams of Christian penetration into Ar-
menia could not remain separate from each other for long. They
had to meet each other in their advance and ramification on Ar-
menian soil. However, their encounter, of which wc know very
little, did not result in an amalgamation. In other words, they re-
tained their distinctive characteristics in respect of language and
worship, and presumably in that of doctrine.

Now, as we realize more and more clearly through the new
studies on Syriac Christianity the differences between the Greek
and Syriac interpretations of Christianity, we may conceive or
imagine the consequences of these differences for the situation of
Christianity in Armenia and for the later doctrinal controversies.

This twofold character of Armenian Christianity remains, then,
the general background which we have to take into consideration
in our study of the later doctrinal controversies which preceded
the Council of Chalcedon and its rejection by the Armenian
Church. Here, at this stage, we confme ourselves to asserting only
that this early state of Christianity provided the grounds for the
later doctrinal divergences in the Armenian Church which would
reveal themselves to be deep-rooted in the Armenian soil, and,

1 The problems involved in the history of this earliest situation of Christianity
in Armenia are discussed extensively by Ormanean, Azgapatum, col. 37-70;
Ter-Minasean?, Arm. Kirche, pp. 2-1 1 (Arm. ed. pp. 6-29); Tournebize, Histoire
pp. 413-21. I believe a new investigation into Armenian sources, helped by recent
studies on early Syrian Christianity, is necessary for a fuller understanding of the
origins of Armenian Christianity and its character.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 8l

therefore, difficult to disregard or to uproot in a comparatively
short space of time.

Let us now proceed to the study of the history of the Armenian
Church in the fourth century and to see how this situation is re-
flected there more clearly and openly.

St Gregory Parthev, afterwards to be called Lousawori? 1 (“the
Illuminator”) who opened this century and somehow dominated
it, came from Cappadocia. He was educated as a Christian in
Caesarea, 1 and both in answer to a missionary vocation and for
patriotic reasons he came to Armenia to preach the Gospel and to
serve his own people.

This was a very significant event not only in the general history
of the Armenian Church and nation, but also, and especially, for
the history of the two Christian traditions referred to in Armenia
before the coming of St Gregory. In fact, he was the man who
achieved the total and official conversion of Armenia. He soon
became the most highly venerated figure for the Armenian people.
Not only was he himself held in supreme honour, but also his
descendants after him. Because of his former links with Cappa-
docia he went to Caesarea to be consecrated bishop. What was
done by him afterwards became a custom which was followed
more or less regularly by many of his successors. Thus, the re-
lationship with Cappadocia was maintained for many years after
his death. Agat'angelos tells us that St Gregory after his epis-
copal consecration in Caesarea, on his way back from Armenia
stopped for a few days in Sebastia. “There he found a multitude
of brethren (ascetics or monks) whom he persuaded to accompany
him so that he could give them the charge of priesthood in his
country. And many groups having assembled he took them with
him.” 2 In many chapters of the same book (e.g. 109 and 113),
we see how the work of these missionaries is carried out with
great success.

As we have already noted, the pro-Roman political orientation
of Armenia and now this new wave of Greek or Hellenophile

1 See Agat'angeJos, ch. 3 ; Xorenaci, bk. ii, ch. 80.

2 Agat'angetos, ch. 113.

82 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

missionaries in Armenia increased the influence of Greek-type
Christianity. But this new movement did not change altogether
the existing status quo. It did not suppress the Syriac-type
Christianity which had been rooted deeply, particularly in the
southern regions of Armenia. On the contrary, the leaden of the
Armenian people and Church, King Tiridates III and St Gregory
the Illuminator, accepted the facts as they were and greeted the
Syrian or Syrophile bishops and missionaries as collaborators in-
stead of competitors or opponents.

This comprehensive attitude of theirs towards Syriac-type
Christianity is clearly seen in the establishment of schools where
both Greek and Syriac languages and cultures were taught for the
instruction of the clergy, who were being recruited chiefly from
among the families of the former pagan priests. This method was
adopted because those who were intended to serve the newly
established Church had to learn necessarily either Greek or Syriac ;
the Church services were said in one or the other of these two
languages according to their influence in various provinces of
Armenia. The Scriptures were read in these two languages and
expounded in Armenian to the people.

Apparently, the two traditions continued to coexist all through
the fourth century without any open or strong clash. Thus, half a
century after St Gregory the Illuminator, St Nerses the Great
(353 - 73) followed his example by “establishing Greek and
Syriac schools in all the provinces of Armenia ”. 1 In his gigantic
work of restoring and strengthening Armenian Christianity,
Nerses also was convinced of the necessity of maintaining this
peaceful coexistence of the two traditions, although one has to
accept that the reign of Nerses ( 353 - 73 ) marked a considerable in-
crease of the influence of the “Greek-type” element, he himself
having been educated in Caesarea . 2

These two types of Christianity are reflected also in the mon-
astic life of the Armenian Church in the fourth century. In all
probability the earliest forms of the monastic life came from the

1 P'awstos, bk. iv, ch. 4.

1 See P'awstos, bk. iv, ch. 3.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 83

Syrian Churches . 1 The famous figure of the Syrian group of mis-
sionaries and monks is Daniel, called “the Syrian”, who not only
was recognized as a most eminent and influential personality in
the southern regions of Armenia, but also had been the pioneer,
the leader, and the teacher of other missionaries and monks in the
work of evangelizing Armenia . 2

Besides this group of Syrian or Syrophile monks and mission-
aries, as we noted above, St Gregory the Illuminator had brought
with him many Greek and Hellenophile monks from Cappadocia,
particularly from Sebastia. He himself, as well as his son Aristakes,
spent some time of their life in ascetic withdrawal from the world.

During and after the second half of the fourth century, the
Greek form of monasticism became more prevalent than the
Syriac. Again St Nerses the Great reorganized and improved Ar-
menian monasticism along the lines of the ascetic rules of St
Basil . 3 The peaceful coexistence of these two traditions, however,
could not last very long. In a country like Armenia, torn by in-
ternal political factions and tossed to and fro by the waves of
foreign influences and interventions, the differences in religious
traditions soon would be affected by different political and cul-
tural tendencies. Persian policy was definitely anti-Byzantine.

1 See Voobus, Syrian Asceticism, Intr. pp. vi-vii, but particularly pp. 155-6; cf
Ter-Minaseanp, Arm. Kirche, pp. 8-9.

2 See about him and about his assistants P‘awstos, bk. iii, ch. 14, bk. v, chs.
25-7, bk. vi, chs. 7, 16. This Daniel of whose identity we know so little, may
perhaps be identified with the Daniel mentioned by Sozomen. Speaking of the
great figures ofEdessene Christianity, he says: “Besides the above, many other
ecclesiastical philosophers flourished in the territories of Edessa and Amida, and
about the mountain called Gaugalius; among these were Daniel and Simeon. But
I shall now say nothing further of the Syrian monks” (iii, 14, p. 293b). Is he the
same person as referred to in Voobus, Syrian Asceticism (see pp. 215-17, 247, 274) ?
It is, indeed, very significant to know that Epiphanius, one of his pupils, was a
Greek. This means that the two types of Christian tradition could coexist hap-
pily. The time of conflict had not yet arrived.

3 See P‘awstos, bk. iv, ch. 4, bk. v, ch. 31. There is a very interesting passage
in Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History on the relation of Armenian monasticism with
the Greek-type monastic orders. (See iii, 14.) On this early monasticism in Ar-
menia see T'opVean, Arm. Monchtum; cf Amadouni, Hieromoines Armhiiens,
p. 282-5 (a very general survey).

84 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

When the Greek tradition gained a prominent place in Armenian
Christianity in the second half of the fourth century, the Persians
became worried about Armenia. They reacted to this advance of
Christianity by using Iranophile elements in Armenia as their
agents to establish the Mazdaean religion. Shapuh II (310-79) sent
an Armenian prince, Meruzan, with an army to conquer Ar-
menia to Mazda'ism and thus to put an end to the constant danger
of Armenia’s increasing association with Byzantium. Movses
Xorenaci gives us a good account of this new policy. It is most
interesting to note that all the measures taken to this effect were
directed against the Greek tradition. There is no reference at all to
the Syriac tradition. I translate the whole passage:

After the death of Arsak, Shapuh gathered a huge army under the
command of Meruzan, and sent him to Armenia by entrusting him
with the rule of the country. ... He promised to give him the
kingdom of Armenia under the condition that he should convert
the country to the Mazdaean religion by subduing the Naxarars. He
(Meruzan) consented and came and arrested many of the Naxarars ’
wives and kept them in custody in various castles hoping that their
husbands would be converted. He endeavoured to abolish every-
thing that was Christian. He sent the bishops and the priests to Persia
under the pretext of their paying tribute; he issued orders not to
study the Greek culture, but only the Persian; no one should dare to
speak or translate Greek. [He did all these things] under the pretext
of breaking off all contacts of information and communion of love
between the Armenians and the Greeks. But, truly, he [intended] to
abolish the preaching of the Christian faith. For, then the Armenians
had no written language and the Church services were conducted in
Greek. 1

It is clearly seen here how strong was the Greek tradition; it pre-
sumably overshadowed the Syriac. Now, this anti-Greek move-
ment was to contribute towards the restoration or restrengthening
of the latter. Later the Persian rulers were to become aware of the
impossibility of destroying Christianity altogether in the countries
under their direct rule or under their sovereignty or overlord-
1 Bk. iii, ch. 36; cf ibid., bk. iii, ch. 54.

HISTORI CA I BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 8 s

ship. So they were to try to use the Syriac tradition as an alter-
native to the Greek influence and, therefore, to oppose it to the
Byzantine Church.

But by this time we enter the fifth century.

II. THE FIRST THREE DECADES OF
THE FOURTH CENTURY

The period which lies between the partition of Armenia
(387/90) and the Council of Ephesus is a time of supreme import-
ance alike for the political, cultural, and ecclesiastical history of
Armenia.

The outstanding event in the period is the invention of the Ar-
menian alphabet. It was at some time in this period that the alpha-
bet was created by St Mesrop Mastoc, who later came to be
known as the “Father of Armenian Literature”. The story of this
invention has rightly been considered as one of the most compli-
cated problems in Armenian history. When one looks at the lit-
erature devoted to its study one is struck by its immense quantity
as well as by the imposing names of famous scholars who have
endeavoured so strenuously to uncover the nucleus of reality in
the accounts of the event. And yet, with all these studies there re-
main, as these scholars themselves confess, a great number of open
questions. To bring forward some of the testimonies of the most
important ones, confining ourselves to the second quarter of
this century alone : N. Adontz at the beginning of his masterly
essay on Mastoc and his disciples says: “The lives of the founders
of Armenian literature are not known as much as they deserve to
be remembered for their great work.” 1 Towards the end of his
study, having offered quite important contributions to the under-
standing of their work, he still confesses that “The origins of [the
invention of] the Armenian alphabet are obscure ”. 2

P. Peeters, the late Bollarrdist scholar, has said this in a more
explicit and striking way in his remarkable study on the origins
of the Armenian alphabet rightly evaluated as “un des plus
1 Mustof, p. 1. 2 Mastof, p. 43.

86 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

substantiels memoires consacres a cette matiere”. 1 Here are the
opening words of his article:

Si le lecteur sous les yeux duquel ce titre est tombe n’a pas deja pris
la fuite, qu’il veuille bien ne pas nous imputer le dessein de pro-
longer a plaisir un debat devenu lassant ni la pretention encore plus
deraisonnable de le terminer. L’origine de l’alphabet armenien est un
de ces themes litigieux que l’on ne parviendrait pas a supprimer, si
meme on pouvait se mettre d’accord pour les enterrer a frais com-
muns. Elude ou mis a l’ecart, le probleme reparait insidieusement
dans d’autres questions dont il est indissociable et qui deviennent a
leur tour insolubles, si onle laisse lui-meme sans solution. 2,

H. Acar ean, who made the study of the origins of the Armenian
alphabet a constant theme of his scholarly work throughout his
life, and who summed up the results of his research as well as those
of other scholars in his Mesrop Mastoc, shows very clearly how the
issues involved in the history of the origins of the Armenian alpha-
bet are still complicated. After offering his own contribution to-
wards their solution he yet confesses that the most important
problem, i.e. the date of the invention, remains unsolved: “Even
the date of the invention of our alphabet is not yet completely
fixed.” 3 And as late as 1957, Manandean admits that the prob-
lems involved in this story are unsolved. He says: “It must be
said that even many of the most essential problems concerning
the invention of the Armenian alphabet are not yet solved and
remain under dispute in spite of numerous studies written on
them.” 4

Why, then, are we interested in this confused problem ? What
is its relation to the theme of our study ?

As P. Peeters, whom we have just quoted, has remarked already,
the invention of the Armenian alphabet is so closely linked with
other problems that it becomes very important when we are

1 Mecerian, Bulletin Armtnologique, p. 254.

2 Peeters, Origines, p. 203,

3 Acarean, Mesrop, p. 83.

4 Critical History, pp. 246-7; cf ibid., pp. 243, 259; see also Idem., Armenian
Alphabet, p. 42.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 87

directly interested in one or the other of those problems. And
our subject here is one of them, as we shall now see.

What are the original sources in which that history is re-
corded? They are to be found in three writers of the fifth cen-
tury:

1. Koriwn, the biographer of Mesrop Mastoc, is the first to be
taken into account, because his work, the Life of Mastoc ( Vark ‘
Mastoci ) 1 has served as the basis for other historical accounts of
the same event.

2. Lazar P'arpeci is the second author who speaks of the inven-
tion of the Armenian alphabet. He refers to it more briefly than
Koriwn and in quite a different manner, although somewhat sur-
prisingly he mentions Koriwn as his source. 2

3. Movses Xorenaci is the third fifth-century author 3 to relate the

1 There have been several editions of Koriwn’s work. I have used the critical
edition made by M. Abelean (see Bibliography). 1 have compared it at some places
with a more recent edition made by Akinean (see Bibliography). The text has not
reached us in the purity of its original form. It has suffered later alterations, (See
Abelean, Koriwn, Intr., p. 18.) Besides these changes in the manuscript, the text
has gone through more than one recension, which resulted in various editions of
the same work in quite different forms. But in spite of all these textual deficiencies
Koriwn’s work remains the basic source and the most important document for
the study of the invention of the Armenian alphabet. (SeePeeters, Origines,p. 204.)

* See P‘arpe?i, bk. i, chs. 9-11; French translation in Langlois, Historiens
Armeniens, vol. ii, pp. 265-8 . 1 have used the critical edition (see Bibliography).

a One of the permanent and most acute issues in Armenian scholarship, espec-
ially in the nineteenth century, has been the problem of Xorenaci’s date. When
did this author live and write his famous History ? Underlying all the various views
are two main positions: (a) Some have held firm to the traditional view that
Xorenaci is a fifth-century author as he himself tells us ; (i) others, questioning the
traditional view and suspecting Xorenaci of an intentional false representation of
himself, have placed him in one or the other of the subsequent four or five cen-
turies. At present, most Armenian scholars tend to side with the first position, at
the same time recognizing in the present text of Xorenaci's History the work of
later compilers or editors. They maintain the view that Xorenaci’s work was re-
garded, so to speak, as the “Standard History” of Armenia and went through
several recensions throughout the subsequent centuries. Therefore the passages in
the present text which refer to later events must have been interpolated through
these later recensions. 1 accept this view in its broad lines.

88 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

same story. His account has some divergences from both Koriwn
and P'arpeci . 1

There have also been later historiographers who have spoken of
the invention of the Armenian alphabet, but they all depend on
Koriwn or Xorenaci . 2

The major fact in this story with which we are primarily con-
cerned here is the journey of Mesrop Mastoc to the cities of
Amida, Edessa, and Samosata, all of them situated in the south-
east of Armenia. In order to understand the significance of that
journey we have to recall the whole story in its general outline as
related chiefly by Koriwn.

During his evangelistic mission to the north-eastern provinces
of Armenia, where the old paganism still persisted in maintaining
its existence, Mesrop Mastoc, a church divine ( Vardapet ) devoted
to the Christianization of his country, urgently felt the need of
bringing the Word of God to the people in their own vernacular,
the Armenian language . 3 He came to Valarsapat, the capital of
the country, and consulted Sahak, the learned Catholicos of the
time. Together they first approached Vramshapouh, the King,
who told them that he had heard of the existence of an Armenian
alphabet in the possession of a Syrian bishop called Daniel. At
the King’s order this alphabet was brought to them. They put it
into practice to see how successful it would prove, but soon rea-
lized that it was defective . 4 So Mastoc went to East Syria, most
probably to make further investigation and to compose an ade-
quate and complete alphabet. Let us now hear the story directly
from the words of Koriwn :

1 See Xorenaci, bk. iii, chs. 47, 52-4, 57-8, 60, 62, 67. (The French translation
in Langlois, Historiens Armeniens, vol. ii, pp. 161-3, 164-6, 167-9, 1 72—3 .)

2 We cannot mention them here. The minor differences from both Koriwn
and Xorenaci are studied thoroughly by Acarean. See his Mesrop. However, we
noted that many of them follow Xorenaci’s account rather than Koriwn’s. This
can be explained by the great influence that Xorenaci had exerted on later Ar-
menian historiographers.

3 See Koriwn, p. 40; cfXorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 47 ; P'arpeci, bk. i, ch. 10.

4 Koriwn, pp. 42-6 ; Xorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 52.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 89

The blessed Mas toe took with him a group of young people by the
order of the King and with the consent of St Sahak, and departing
from each other with the holy kiss, he journeyed in the fifth year of
Vramshapouh, King of Armenia, and came to the land of Aram , 1
to two cities of Syria; the first of them was called Edessa, and the
name of the second was Amid. He appeared before the holy bishops,
the name of the first [being] Babilas and [that] of the second Acacius.
[These] in company with the clerics and the princes of the cities met
the arrivals and bestowed many honours upon them and received
them with stewardship according to the rule of those who are named
after Christ.

Then, the disciple-loving master, dividing those whom he had
taken with him into two [groups], appointed some [to study] Syriac
literature [in the city of Edessa ], 2 and thence he sent some to the city
of Samosata [to study] Greek literature . 3

Mastoc himself stayed in Edessa, where he worked hard to bring
his task to completion. Finally, through the divine help of the
“all-merciful God” he succeeded in shaping the Armenian alpha-
bet.

Then he himself went to Samosata where a Greek calligrapher
Rufinus (Hrowp‘anos) perfected the writing of the letters. There
also he translated, with the help of two of his disciples, the Book
of Proverbs. This translation was copied by the same calligrapher.
Thus, with his mission achieved, he returned to Armenia, where
he was given an overwhelmingly enthusastic and, at the same
time, most solemn welcome . 4

1 See Gen. 10. 22, 23. Koriwn uses this term in the Biblical sense: “In the Old
Testament Aram includes the northern part of Mesopotamia, Syria as far south as
the borders of Palestine and the larger part of Arabia Petra” (Hastings, D.B. vol.
i, p. 138a).

2 “i k'ahk'in edesafwof Abelean in his edition of the text adds these words
supposing that they existed in the original text and were lost in later recensions.
The reason is that in the second part of the sentence the word al'ti (= “ thence”)
implies a former mention of the place which was Edessa. (See Abelean, Koriwn,
p. 109, n. 64.)

3 Koriwn, p. 46.

* Koriwn, pp. 48-56; Xorenafi (bk. iii, ch. 53) relates the story somewhat dif-
ferently, but on the main points his record coincides with Koriwn’s.

90 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

This story, and particularly the passage just translated, has
raised very important questions and has posed to scholars some
most complicated problems which still have not found answers
unanimously agreed upon or generally recognized as adequate
and satisfactory. When did Mastoc go to Edessa ? Who were the
persons referred to? What did his work precisely consist of?
When we take into account the information provided by Xoren-
aci and P'arped, both of whom differ on many points from
Koriwn and in some places even contradict him, then these ques-
tions become thorny problems and are at first sight insoluble.

It is of course beyond the scope of our study to enter upon these
complications . 1 For us, as we noted already, the important fact is
the turning of Mastoc to the Syrian side for this most important
work for the Armenian Church and culture. The basic question,
then, is this: Why did Mastoc go to Syria to find help for the ful-
filment of his purpose and not, for instance, to Caesarea or to
Constantinople ?

First of all, there are two obvious explanations we have to take
into consideration.

1. The alphabet which was first brought to him came from
Daniel, a Syrian bishop, and most probably from somewhere in
the northern parts of Mesopotamia or the eastern borders of
Syria. When he applied it and became aware of its inadequacy it
was only natural that he should make further research and inves-
tigation in the area from which it was brought . 2 This was,
then, a technical necessity which could not be avoided if the work
started, as it did, from these Danielean letters.

2. The second reason is a more important one. After the par-
tition of Armenia, Syrian culture came to be favoured by the
Persians in the Persian section of Armenia for reasons that we
have studied already. Sahak himself had experienced the perils in-
volved in a relationship with Byzantium ; he had been suspected
already for his Byzantinophile inclinations. The Armenian king,

1 Later, however, we shall be dealing with some of them.

2 It is most significant to note that according to Xorenaci’s account, Mastoc
went to see Daniel himself (bk. iii, ch. 53. See also Acarean, Mesrop, pp. 60-1).

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 91

Xosrov (385-87/8), who appointed him as Catholicos had been
trying to establish friendly relations with Byzantium; his ulti-
mate purpose was the annexation of the Byzantine section of Ar-
menia to his kingdom, which then covered only Persian Armenia.
This policy led to his deposition by the Persian Government,
followed immediately by his imprisonment. Sahak was associ-
ated with him, and it was therefore necessary for him to go to
Ctesiphon and to show his loyalty to the Persian Government and
win their sympathy and support. 1 In Ctesiphon of course he
realized what an atmosphere of suspicion had surrounded the
Persian Court. Only a supremely tactful policy could make Ar-
menia live in peace, and he was the man for this task.

After the partition of Armenia the anti-Byzantine policy of
Persia had become so much intensified that Syriac culture had
gained predominance. Thus Xorenaci tells us that when Mastoc
returned from his mission to the Alowans (i.e. the Caucasian
Albanians), he found Sahak translating the Holy Scriptures
“from Syriac for want of the Greek [text]. For the Greek books
had previously been burnt by Merowzan throughout the coun-
try; again, when Armenia was divided the Persian rulers did not
permit [the Armenians] to learn Greek in their section but only
Syriac.” 2

This must have been the reason why the Armenian students
were sent to centres of Syriac culture and the services in the
Church were conducted in Syriac, as P'arpeci, speaking of Mas-
toe’ s decision to create an Armenian alphabet, tells us in a sorrow-
ful tone :

The blessed man, Mastoc, was constantly depressed in mind by
seeing the great efforts and the exceeding expenses of Armenia’s
youth who for high fees and with distant journeys and long wander-
ings used to spend their days in the schools of Syriac culture. [This
was because] the services of the Church and the lessons from the
Scriptures were conducted in Syriac language in the monasteries and

1 See the whole story as related by Xorenayi, bk. iii, chs. 49-51; cf P'arpcyi,
bk. i, eh. 9.

1 Xorenayi, bk. iii, ch, 54.

92 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

churches of the Armenian people. The people of such a big country
as this 1 were not able to understand and benefit from this, and be-
cause of the incomprehensibility of the Syriac language there re-
sulted [only] fatigue on the ministers’ part without any profit on the
part of the people . 2

In such a political and cultural atmosphere it is understandable
that Mastoc would turn to the Syrian side more readily than to
any other centre . 3

But there is a third reason, which is perhaps the most important
one, because it seems to have a more direct relation on Mastoc’s
turning to East Syria.

We have already seen, in the first part of this chapter, what a
great part the Syrian missionaries played in the country through-
out the first three or four centuries of Armenian Christianity.
That there was a close relationship between Armenian Christi-
anity and the Syrian Christian tradition is beyond all doubt.
Surely there must have been many Armenian students among
those who used to go to the School of Edessa, the famous centre
of theological teaching — undoubtedly rooted in the tradition of
the Antiochene School — in the east . 4 It was basically this trad-
itional familiarity with Syriac culture that made Mastoc’s journey
to Edessa so natural and so easy. Therefore, it must not be thought
that his turning to Edessa was only the accidental result of the poli-
tical circumstances and the cultural impact of the Syriac-type
Christianity which was being so openly favoured and supported
by the Persian Government. The ancient traditional familiarity

1 He refers to Persian Armenia, which was the largest part of the country.

2 P'arpefi, bk. i, ch. lo.

3 P. Peeters thinks that Sahak and Masto? turned to the Syrians because they
did not want to see their Church in a deeper dependence on the Byzantine Church;
secondly, that they wanted to accomplish their work outside Armenia so that they
could avoid Persian inspection of their work. (See Origines, p. 208.) It seems to us
that there is too much speculation on Peeters’ part. His view is not supported by
any historical evidence.

4 At the end of the fourth and in the beginning of the fifth century “l’Ecole des
Perses prosperait et attirait a Edesse des etudiants accounts des divers points de la
Mesopotamie et principalement des provinces chretiennes de la Perse en proie aux
persecutions des Mages” (Duval, Histoire D'Edesses, p. 161).

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 93

of the Armenian. Church with East Syria has a greater importance
for the understanding of Mastoc’s turning to Syria.

Here we have an important point bearing on the immediate
purpose of our investigation in this story : To what extent and in
what way did that familiarity affect the doctrinal attitude of the
Armenian Church in the fifth century, prior to the Council of
Chalccdon ? Of course it is easy to imagine that, since Syria and
Mesopotamia were closely dependent on the Antiochene trad-
ition, Armenian theological thought must have been deeply in-
fluenced by the latter. But this general and hypothetical conclusion
cannot satisfy us. Let us, then, examine the problem more closely
and on more solid grounds of evidence. Unfortunately, we have
no written documents earlier than the fifth century which could
provide us with some concrete evidence and illuminate our know-
ledge and understanding of the theological milieu of the time. The
fifth-century Armenian documents in their present state, are, in-
deed, very restrained in their account of the relationship of Ar-
menian theology with the Antiochene School before the Council
of Ephesus. However, there are some indications, mainly in foreign
sources, which throw some light on this very important point.

First of all, we have the testimony of Photius, the famous pat-
riach of Constantinople (810-95), who in his Bibliotheca or
Myriobibhon gives us revealing information about a relationship
between Mastoc and Theodore of Mopsuestia. He tells us that he
has read three discourses or treatizes against the Persian religion
written by “Theodore the Priest” and addressed to “Mastoubios
of Armenian origin”: ©eoBcopov Trpeo-fivrepov, vepi Tfjs iv TIepotBi
paytKrjs iv Xoyois y . ' Aveyvdiaflrj /ScjSAiSapiov ©eoSojpov IJepl r rjs iv
IlepolBi payiKrjs xai rtV ij rfjs eiaepelas Si a<j>opct iv Xoyois rpujl.
FI pov'jxjjvcl Be ccvtovs TTpos Mmjtov^lov e£ 'Appevlas 6pp.cop.evov,
ycopeTTioKOTrov Be Tir/x^vovra. 1 Then he identifies this ©eoScopo?
7 rpecrfivTepos with Theodore of Mopsuestia: Ovros 6 ©eoSwpos o
MoipoveoTias etv at BoxeZ' rqv Sc yap Neoroplov alpeoiv teal paXiora
iv rw rplrcp A oyip Kparvvcov npoavaefiojveZ, aAAa xal t r/v to>v
a/caprcoXaiv anoKaTaaTacnv Tepccrevercu. 2

1 P.G., 1. 103, col. 181.

2 Ibid.

94 COUNCIL Of CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Unfortunately, the discourses referred to have not survived.
However, there can be no doubt about the accuracy of Photius’
information. He is well known as a scrupulous and trustworthy
scholar of his time. Therefore, taking his testimony as true, we
have to answer the question: Who was Macrrov^ios to whom these
discourses were addressed?

N. Adontz was the first to take into serious consideration the
testimony of Photius. After careful study of the ecclesiastical
history of the period between 383 and 435, he suggested that
Mastoc, the author of the Armenian alphabet, must have been the
person to whom Theodore addressed his work. His arguments
may be summed up under the following heads :

(а) The similarity of the two names is striking: Mcujrovfhos—
Mastoc, Mast‘oc,Mazdoc, which is the original name of Mesrop as
known to Koriwn and P'arpeci. 1 2

(б) The outstanding figure of that period in Armenian eccles-
iastical and cultural history is Mastoc.

(c) The works of Theodore of Mopsuestia were translated into
Armenian and spread in Armenia to such an extent that immed-
iately after the Council of Ephesus Rabboula of Edessa and
Acacius of Melitene, the followers of St Cyril and the holders of
the Ephesian orthodoxy in the neighbouring regions of Ar-
menia, became alarmed and gave urgent warnings to the Ar-
menians. In fact, the subsequent troubles in the Church over the
Three Chapters started from Armenia as Liberatus tells us. z

When and how did Theodore come to know Mastoc? The
evidence provided by Photius points to a personal relationship.
Theodore must have known Mastoc personally if he addressed,
as he did, his work to him. It is reasonable to think that Mastoc

1 See Abelean, Koriwn, Intr., pp. 18-19: Akinean, Koriwn, p. 69, n. $, with full
bibliography on this point.

2 P.L., t. 68, col. 963. We shall deal with this extremely important episode of
Armenian ecclesiastical history in the next chapter. Here we only note the fact
that there was some ground in Armenia for Theodore’s reputation and influence.
Adontz’s thesis is argued “par des raisons tout a fait sdduisantes” (Peeters, Ori-
gines, p. 2 to), in his study already quoted — -Mahof and his Disciples.

historical background: before EPHESUS

might have asked him to write the above-mentioned discourses,
because in his own time Mazda'ism was penetrating into Armenia.
We saw that it was the official policy of the Persian Empire to
assimilate the Armenian people through a Mazdaean mission in
Armenia in addition to the political pressure brought upon them.
Therefore, Mastoc might have needed the help of an outstanding
Christian theologian and apologist to provide him with solid
arguments to be given as Christian answers to the Mazdaean
criticisms of the truth of Christianity, which was being chal-
lenged through an intensive wave of preaching. Furthermore, this
had been especially successful among the Iranophile Armenians.
We must also note that Eznik of Kolb, who took up the challenge
and answered the criticisms in his De Deo (Book III), most prob-
ably used Theodore’s treatises in his Refutation of the Persian
religion. 1

Adontz suggests that Mastoc might have met Theodore some-
where and at some time during his journey to East Syria in search
of the Armenian alphabet. This is why he proposes the decade
383-92 as the period in which the date of the invention of the Ar-
menian alphabet has to be fixed. 2 The argument for this sugges-
tion, is that, according to Photius, Theodore wrote his treatises
and addressed them to Mastoubios when he was a priest (7 rptofiv-
t epos). After 392 he was the bishop of Mops ues tia. 3

Akinean thinks that Mastoc had been in Antioch and had
studied under the famous teacher Libanius. 4 There he must have
met Theodore with whom he continued to keep in touch after
his return to Armenia. 5 Secondly, he suggests that it was on
Mastoc’s request that Theodore wrote his treatises. 6 His third

1 P. L. Maries, who has studied the text of Eznik’s work very thoroughly,
assures us that with all probability Eznik had used not only Theodore’s treatises,
but also the works of Theodore’s teacher, Diodore of Tarsus. (See De Deo, pp.
85-91.)

2 See Adontz, Maitof, p. 43.

3 See Amann, Theodore, col. 235—6; cf Devreesse, Essai, p. 3.

4 See Mozley, Libanius, pp. 709-12; also, and particularly, Festugiere, Antioche,
pp. 91-139.

5 See Akinean, Mastoc, col. 506.

6 Ibid., col. 509.

96 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

suggestion is that when Mastoc went to East Syria he also went
to Mopsuestia to consult his friend Theodore, now the bishop of
the city. In order to substantiate his hypothesis he proposes to
change the name of the city mentioned in Koriwn as Samosata
into Mopsuestia, the Armenian form of which is Mamuestia . 1

Furthermore, he suggests that Mastoc knew Ibas of Edcssa per-
sonally. The name of the priest mentioned in Koriwn’s text 2
as Abel must have been in the original form Hiba or Ibas. This
priest was the person who revealed to the Armenian King, Vram-
shapouh, the existence of an Armenian alphabet in the possession
of Daniel, the Syrian bishop. Mastoc must have met Ibas in
Edessa, with whom he became very friendly and who must have
helped him in his work . 3

It is difficult of course to subscribe to Akinean’s propositions
because they are not based on any historical evidence. His dealing
with the text of Koriwn is too arbitrary and the manuscript trad-
ition does not lend support to it. One could reach any conclusion
with so many alterations in the text. Many of his assertions re-
viewed above are in fact questionable at various points and they
cannot give us any solid ground of certainty or even of strong
probability.

But setting aside these proposed textual alterations and these
unconfirmed hypotheses, it seems to us that it is highly probable
that, if not Mastoc himself, at any rate his disciples, could have
met Ibas in Edessa, because in the first quarter of the fifth century
he was the most prominent figure of the School of Edessa; this
was a time, we must remember, when Armenian students came
to Edessa, a familiar place for Christian studies, as we said earlier.
It must have been this personal acquaintance with Mastoc’ s
disciples or Armenian students sent to Edessa 4 that made it both
possible and easy for Ibas to translate the works of Theodore of

1 Ibid., col. 515-17; cfldem, Armenian Alphabet, col. 298.

2 Koriwn, p. 44; cfXorenafi, bk. iii, ch. 52.

1 See Akinean, Armenian Alphabet, col. 295-7; cf Peeters, Origines, p. 209;
Idem, Jeremie, p. 21. (See Additional Note 2.)

♦ See Koriwn, p. 74; Xorenafi, bk. iii, ch. 60.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS

Mopsucstia into Armenian, works which were to cause such a
storm in the Armenian Church, as we shall see later.

What can we conclude from all these fragmentary indica-
tions ?

P. Peeters, who was for the first time to treat the history of the
origins of the Armenian alphabet in relation to the doctrinal
orientation of the Armenian Church and against the background
of Eastern Church history as a whole, has the firm conviction
that “il n’est pas contestable que, au temps de Mastoc et de Sahak,
l’Eglise d’Armenie, dans sa parfaite inexperience speculative, ait
commence par accepter, en toute innocence, ies enseignements de
l’ecole theologique d’ou le nestorianisme est sorti.” 1

In Peeters’ mind this doctrinal situation in the Armenian
Church was a well-established one and was created by men who had
already adopted a definite theological attitude. This is easily seen
in his thesis when he tries to show that the later pro-Ephesian
position of the Armenian Church was the opposite of this one, 2
and that no relationship with Alexandria or familiarity with
Alexandrine theology ever existed. He says: “Pas un mot du
recit (of Koriwn), pas une allusion, rien nc laissc entrevoir qu’ils
(i.e. the leaders of the Armenian Church) aient un seul instant
songe a l’Egypte: on peut etaler une plus sereine ignorance de

1 Origiaes, p. 226. Again, after studying the historical indications we reviewed
above and which hinted at the relationship of Armenian Christianity with the
Antiochene tradition — via Syriac Christianity — he suggests that the theologian
cannot stop there. He must draw conclusions. Therefore, himself being a theo-
logian, he goes on to say: “Devant un tel ensemble de preuves convergentes
(sic) force lui sera de reconnaitre que la litterature armdnienne est eclose sous le
signe de Theodore de Mopsueste et qu’elle a commence de s’epanouir dans un
terroir saturc d’influences nestoriennes. (Origines, p. 217).

2 Ibid., p. 218. Even the later Monophysite position of the Armenian Church is
understood by him as a departure from the earlier doctrinal position. He says:
“ Avant d’evoluer vers le monophysisme le plus exagere (sic) l’Armenie avait com-
mence par subir l’attraction de 1 ’ecole d’Antioche. Elle a fait ses premieres classes
sous des maitres dont Theodore de Mopsueste etait 1 ’oracle. Personne ne conteste
qu’elle les ait repudie d’assez bonne heure et que les ayant quittes, elle ne leur a pas
menage les anathemes et les invectives. Mais cette conversion n’abolit pas le passe
que les historiens armeniens ont un peu volontairement oublie, et que rien
n'autorise a declarer invraisemblable a priori "(JSremie, p. 23).

98 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

l’hellenisme alexandrin et une absence de predilection plus voisine
de 1’indifference pour la christologie de S. Cyrille.” 1

We can go quite a long way with Peeters in his analysis of the
relation of the Armenian Church to the Christian tradition of
East Syria. But we cannot reach the same conclusion, for the
reasons given below.

We do not need to repeat what we have perhaps overempha-
sized already in this chapter. But let us put this as one of the
postulates of our interpretation of the doctrinal situation of the
Armenian Church at this stage : There had been a close traditional
link between the Armenian Church and the Syriac-type Christi-
anity in East Syria and North Mesopotamia and, therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that Armenians had been in contact with
the Antiochene Christian tradition through Syrian influence. But
this influence was not an exclusive influence or even the domin-
ant one. This assertion is the point where we begin to depart from
Peeters’ interpretation, in which the Antiochene influence is seen
and evaluated rather unilaterally.

We have already shown that especially during and after the
time of St Gregory the Illuminator there had also been a strong
Greek influence, which was not Antiochene in its origin or char-
acter and had come mainly from Caesarea. Now it can easily be
shown that in the time of Mastoc, even in view of his possible
relationship with Theodore and the story of his journey to East
Syria, the Antiochene tradition was not everything in Armenian
Christianity and was not even predominant, as has sometimes
been imagined.

It is certain that Sahak Catholicos stood at the very centre of
Armenian Church history in the first four decades of the fifth
century. He was not only the leader ex professio of the cultural
movement but he also occupied a central place in the political
affairs of his time. His work did not consist simply in helping or
encouraging Mastoc in his achievements ; rather it had the char-
acter and the scope of a guiding, planning, and co-ordinating

s Origines, p. 218. Again, he stresses this fact a little further on. (See pp. 231-2;
cf Jerhtue, p. 17.)

historical background: BEFORE EPHESUS 99

action. He did not back tbe work of Mastoc, but directed it with
such skill and efficiency that the whole course of fifth-century
history is seen to be overshadowed by his eminent figure. It is
obvious that especially those cultural activities in Armenia which
followed the invention of the Armenian alphabet, were carried on
under his direct guidance, active participation, and close super-
vision . 1

On the political scene, Sahak played the role of a mentor to the
Armenian Kingdom. He knew the situation in all its complicated
phases and at all its sensitive points, because he considered him-
self— as well as did the people — as the man responsible for tack-
ling it with the utmost care and wisdom. The dilemma which we
described in the previous chapter 2 had to be solved by him rather
than anyone else. He tried, and, in spite of all the unavoidable hin-
drances and some temporary failures, succeeded to a great extent
in securing a period of comparative peace for Armenia. He
achieved this by being faithful to the Persian overlords and, at the
same time, by consolidating the foundations of Armenian inde-
pendence in terms of a strong cultural and national self-conscious-
ness, which became the major factor in Armenian history
throughout the fifth century and afterwards. For fifty-one years
he dominated the scene of Armenian history and provided the
Armenian Church with a period of peace. In fact, it was under his
catholicate that the “Golden Age” was reached, he himself being
primarily responsible for its achievement. Thus, he went twice to
Ctesiphon to give assurance of Armenia’s loyalty’ to the Persian
Government which constantly suspected the Armenians for their
relations with Byzantium . 3

Again, Sahak also held that highest authority to which the
Armenian feudal lords could appeal in cases of conflict with their

1 See for historical evidence of this P'arpeci, bk. i, chs. io-ii; cf Xorenayi,
bk. iii, ch. 54; Koriwn, p. 76; also Ormanean, Azgapatum, col. 276 ff; Akinean,
Sahak, col. 4.75— < 5 .

2 See above, pp. 72-4.

3 See, for the supreme importance of Sahak’s role in the life of the Armenian
people in the fifth century, Ormanean, Azgapatum, col. 225-326 (a summary,
Col. }22-l).

100 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

king or discord among themselves. And although they did not
always follow his advice or directives, yet they could never dis-
regard him . 1 We must never forget that Sahak was the last des-
cendant of St Gregory’s family, which was still held in the highest
veneration by the Armenian people as a natural expression of their
gratitude to St Gregory the Illuminator for his great work of con-
verting Armenia to Christianity.

Yet with all his pro-Persian policy, inspired undoubtedly by
the needs ol the situation, Sahak, this great and authoritative
figure, was a Hcllcnophile in his heart and mind as far as his re-
lationship with foreign Churches was concerned. We have
already noted that his father, St Nerses the Great, was educated in
Caesarea and had encouraged and strengthened the Hellenophile
influence in Armenia. Most probably he was sent by his father to
Caesarea and Constantinople for his advanced studies . 2 His know-
ledge of Greek and the superiority of his education over any other
Armenian of his time is something that is equally testified to by
both Koriwn 3 and P‘arpeci . 4 It was with this mastery of the Greek
language and literature that he became so efficient and proved so
successful in his leadership of Armenian intellectual life in the
fifth century, centred, as it was, on the translation movement.

With all his precautions to avoid any clash with the Persians,
Sahak did not sever his relations with the Greeks. These relations
were maintained through the Byzantine section of Armenia.
Right from tire beginning of his catkolicate he was suspected of
Byzantinophile inclinations. Consequently, he was summoned to
Ctesiphon with King Xosrov soon after the partition of Armenia.
There he cleared himself from all stains of suspicion , 5 and whereas

1 This is clearly shown in the episode of the dethronement of the last Arsacid
King, Artases. See the story related in detail by P'arpefi; bk. i, chs. 12-16; cf
Xorenici, 63-7.

2 See Ormanean, Azgapatum, col. 257-8. He was even born in Caesarea. See
Idem, Azgapatum, col. 163-4; cf Akinean, Sahak, col. 472-3.

3 Seepp. 74, 76.

4 Bk. i, ch. 10, where it is said that he could compete with Greek intellectuals
with his masterly knowledge of the Greek culture.

! See Xorenafi, bk. iii, chs. 50-1.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS IOI

the Persians dethroned King Xosrov, they permitted Sahak to
continue his catholicate. Surely this was a move made with the
idea of winning the confidence of the Armenians and thus pre-
venting them from shifting to the Byzantine side. Therefore,
given all these circumstances, it is legitimate to think that the most
powerful man in the Armenian Church had no direct relations
with the Antiochene Christianity and, what is more important,
that he had close links with Byzantium.

That this link with Constantinople was not broken off by the
partition of Armenia is evident from the events which followed
the invention of the Armenian alphabet. In fact, the Byzantine
section of the country was always regarded as an integral part of
Armenia by Sahak, Mastoc, and all those leaders of the Church
whose deepest and constant concern was the preservation of the
unity and solidarity of the Armenian people. King Xosrov had
tried through negotiations with Byzantium to extend his rule
over that part of Armenia also , 1 and if Sahak sympathized with
this policy, that can be explained only by his firm conviction that
Armenians in the Byzantine section should be cared for and not
be left to their fate at the hands of the Byzantines . 2 Sahak kept in
close touch with that part of Armenia and through it maintained
his relations with Constantinople.

It was with this fundamental concern for the Byzantine
Armenians that Sahak endeavoured to spread the use ofthe newly in-
vented Armenian alphabet among the Armenians in the Byzantine
section . 3 But it was not so easy to achieve this aim. The rulers of

1 See P'arpefi, bk. i, ch. 2; cf Xorenaci, bk. iii, chs. 49-50.

1 See Xorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 54. The situation on which the Armenian Church
lived in the Byzantine section could not have left Sahak indifferent.

3 According to Xorenaci’s account it was Sahak himself who went there and
directed the work personally (bk. iii, ch. 57). But on the request of the Armenian
naxarars he returned to Persian Armenia to settle the discord which had arisen
among them and to secure national unity. Thus, when he left the Byzantine sec-
tion he entrusted the work to Mastoc Oak. iii, ch. 58). According to Koriwn’s
account, the initiative was taken by Mastoc himself and the work also done by
him. There is no mention of Sahak (see pp. 64-8). it seems to us more likely that
Sahak himself had designed the work for Mastoc and his journey to Constanti-
nople. Such an important work, so close to Sahak’s heart and mind, could only be

102 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

the Byzantine section could not allow the spread of the Armenian
alphabet because it came from the Persian section and, more im-
portant than that, it was not consistent with their own policy, the
ultimate end of which was the total integration of the Armenian
Church into the Byzantine. So Mastoc and Vardan, the grandson
of Catholicos Sahak, were sent to Constantinople to get permission
from the emperor for the alphabet to be used. 1

We need not go into the details of Mastoc’s journey to Con-
stantinople and his missionary work in Byzantine Armenia.
What is immediately relevant to our purpose is to note that this
visit to Constantinople was a decisive moment in the history of
the Armenian doctrinal orientation. If, chiefly for political reas-
ons and partly for cultural and traditional reasons, the Armenians
had been kept for a while in close contact with the Antiochene
tradition through their link with Syriac-type Christianity, their
links with Constantinople, equally traditional and cultural, were
not altogether broken. They were loosened, but not destroyed.
Their re-establishment meant that the Antiochene influence was
not an exclusive element in Armenian Christianity. Moreover,
that strengthening would carry with it a weakening or a decrease
of the Antiochene influence. The visit of Mastoc to Constanti-
nople brings to our consideration the following two points which
are of great importance in understanding the doctrinal situation
of the Armenian Church at this juncture.

i. On his way to Constantinople Mastoc “took a great num-
ber [lit. “a multitude”] of disciples to the city of Melitene; he en-
trusted them to the holy bishop of the city who was called Acacius,
and left [there] as head of the disciples the one called Leontius, a

directed by him. This is evident not only from his former connections with Con-
stantinople, but it also can be deduced from Koriwn’s narrative itself; here Koriwn
speaks of the whole work of Makof as being directed by Sahak. In fact, Maltop
used to report to him at the end of every mission he took in the remote provinces
of Armenia or in the countries outside Armenia, such as Caucasian Albania and
Georgia (see Koriwn, pp, 64, 70, 74).

1 There is a difference between the two accounts of the event which deserves
attention. (See Additional Note 3.)

HISTOHICA1 backcbound: BEFOEE EPHESUS 103

faithful and truth-loving [lit. “truth-worshipping”] man .” 1 This
Acacius was none other than the well-known supporter of St
Cyril and a determined opponent of Nestorius. Later, he took
part in the condemnation of the latter at the Council of Ephesus.
Afterwards he became the defender of Cyrilline christology
against the Nestorians or Nestorianizers . 2 As we shall see a little
further on, he was the man who opened the early stages of the
controversy on the Three Chapters, more precisely, over the
writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, a controversy which started
in Armenia. His close connection with Armenian doctrinal his-
tory can be explained by his intimate relation with Mastoc, and
particularly by his well-established authority and influence on the
Armenian students entrusted to him. Later we shall see what in-
fluence these students were to have in Armenia when they re-
turned to their country and when the Nestorian controversy
raged over the eastern provinces of the Byzantine empire.

How can we explain the action of Mastoc, if we assume that
he was a convinced Antiochene, whose theological mind was
formed under the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other
pioneers in what later came to be Nestorianism ? We think that
his personal relationship with Theodore of Mopsuestia — which
we assume to be a highly probable fact even if not historically
estabhshed — or his journey to East Syria for the accomplishment
of his work did not imply that he adhered to the Antiochene theo-
ology as such. Otherwise he would have been very reluctant to
entrust his students to the care of one of the most anti- Antiochene
theologians of that time , 3

1 Koriwn, p. 66; cf Xorenagi, bk. iii, ch. 57. The date of MaStOf’s journey falls
between 419 and 425, the date of the death of Atticus, the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, whom Maistog had met. Akinean puts it in 419/20 (see Maftof, coL 533),
Peeters in 422 (see Origines, p. 212), Manandean in 420/22 (see Critical History,
P- 275 -)

2 See Rouzies, Acace, col. 242-3. Lightfoot speaks of Acacius’ doctrinal posi-
tion in the following words: “Altogether his antagonism to Nestorian teaching
was not only persistent but intemperate ” (Acacius, p. 14a).

3 P. Peeters, while stressing the pro-Antiochene theological position of the
Armenian Church, has not been able to avoid the difficulty found in the passage
just translated from Koriwn. He has recognized the fact, but it seems that he has

104 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

2. The second important point is this : The visit of Mastoc to
Constantinople reopened the way for the Armenian Church di-
vines to have direct contact with the cultural life of the imperial
city. That road of communication had practically been closed to
them after the partition of Armenia, which had prevented them,
on political grounds, from proceeding to Caesarea and Constanti-
nople. We have in Koriwn two explicit testimonies to this effect.
In the first case, after the return of Mastoc from Constantinople
when the literary activities were being more and more intensified,
two students, Yovsep* (Joseph) and Eznik were sent first to Edessa
on a mission “to translate from the Syriac language into Armen-
ian the traditions (i.e. the literary heritage) of their (i.e. of the
Syrians’) holy Fathers’ h 1 Having done this and having sent their
translations to their teachers, Sahak and Mastoc, “they went forth
to Byzantium, where they studied and became erudite and were
appointed translators of the Greek language ”. 2

This happened, we must remember, just before the Council of
Ephesus. They were soon followed by two others, Leontius and
Koriwn, the author of the Life of Mastoc* Most probably, as we
shall see in the next section, this happened soon after the Council
of Ephesus. These cases are those recorded in the historical docu-
ments. It is reasonable to think that many others also would have
followed these disciples, and the later history of the fifth century
indeed provides us with more names. This communication with
Constantinople, and presumably with other non-Antiochene
centres of Christian culture, towards the end of the first quarter
of the fifth century and during the time of the Nestorian contro-
versy in Constantinople, was to play a determining role in the
doctrinal orientation of the Armenian Church. The Ephesian doc-
trine which later became the rock of the Armenian christological
position came to them through that same channel: from Con-
tantinople to Armenia via Melitene.

not worked out its implications carefully. (See Origines, pp. 217-8 ; cf Jeremie,

pp. 17-19-)

1 Koriwn, p. 74. 2 Koriwn, p. 74; cfXorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 60.

3 Koriwn, pp. 74-6.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS 105

Before closing the study of this period wc must note carefully
that the communication with Constantinople had some conse-
quences in Armenia which are not unimportant for elucidating
our point. When in 423 Artases, the son of Vramshapuh, was
nominated King of Armenia, 1 the deepest desire of St Sahak was
fulfilled. 2 But Iranophile elements in the country later opposed
King Artases and asked Sahak to join them in bringing charges
against their King before the Persian Court. Sahak declined their
invitation and advised them, in a fatherly way, not to carry' out
their intention, which seemed to him to be striking a blow at
Armenia’s autonomy at its most sensitive point, the Arsacid King-
dom. 3 * But in spite of his counsel they went to the Persian King
and asked him to dethrone Artases. Their request was immed-
iately granted and, with Artases, Sahak Catholicos also was de-
prived of his Catholicate, which was now transferred to Surmak, a
representative of the Syrophile faction.*

Now, there are two things which seem to us to be of great sig-
nificance for the understanding of the ecclesiastical situation of
the time :

1 . According to Xorenaci’s account of the event the accusation
brought against St Sahak and King Artases was that they had
been maintaining close relations with Byzantium. In fact, when
the Armenian naxarark ' came to Sahak to ask his support for their
accusations against the King, Sahak told them that they must wait
a little while and bear with patience the mistakes of the King until
“wc could find a way out of this situation [by the help of] the
Byzantine emperor Theodosius’’. 5 And this, we have to note care-
fully, fits perfectly into the story of St Mastoc’s mission to the

1 See P'arpcfi, bk. i, ch. 13.

2 Xorenaci says that Sahak had sent two Armenian princes, Sembat and Vardan,
on a special mission to the King of Persia, Vram V (420-38). This latter, having
“forgiven” the transgressions of the Armenians, appointed ArtaSes King of
Armenia (bk. iii, ch. 58).

3 As Grousset has said it in a penetrating remark, “c’etait, on peut le dire, le
suicide del’Arme'nie antique " ( Histoire , p. 183).

♦ P'arpeci gives us the full story in a dramatic fashion. (See bk. i, chs. 13-14.)

5 See Xorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 63.

106 COUNCIL OF CHALCBDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Byzantine section of Armenia and his visit to Constantinople. It
is obvious that the pro-Byzantine orientation openly expressed
in these two events had caused some uneasiness and anxiety to
the Persian Court and to the Iranophile elements in Armenia.

2. It is equally important to note also that the Armenian nax-
ararti who went to Ctesiphon to complain before the King of
Kings, had with them a “certain priest by the name of Surmak,
from the provinces of Bznunik*, from a village called Arcke, of
the family of the province’s priests. Having joined the Armenian
naxarars who had broken away from the counsel of the Cath-
olicos, St Sahak, he spoke words unfair and more abominable
than [those] of the Armenian naxarars against King Artases before
the Persian nobility, thus pleasing the Armenian naxarars, because
some [of the Armenian nobles] had promised him the Catholi-
cosal throne of Armenia .” 1

Surmak came from that province in south Armenia — Bznunik'
— which had always been under Syrian influence. He was the first
of the three “catholicoi” in Armenia who were appointed by the
Persian Court on the request of the Iranophile Armenian naxarars
and whose reign was meant to achieve the breaking-off of the
Armenian Church’s relationship with the Church in the Byzan-
tine Empire, a relationship which was being gradually affirmed
during the last ten years, as we have shown already. Surmak and
his two successors, Brk'isoy and Smuel (Samuel), were all of
them recognized successively as the responsible heads of the Ar-
menian Church at the Persian Court during the last decade of the
Catholicate of Sahak, who had always been regarded as the real
head and leader of the Armenian Church by the Armenian people
themselves . 2 The scope of our study cannot permit us to go into
the details of this story which is so clearly and extensively related
in both P’arpeci and Xorenaci. It is interesting, for instance, to

1 P’arpeci, bk. i, ch. 14. Xorenaci is more explicit here (bk. iii, ch. 64).

2 It is worth noting that these three catholicoi have not found places in the
official list (the Armenian “Liber Pontificalis”) of the Armenian Catholicoi.
They have always been regarded as foreigners imposed on the Armenian Church
by their political masters.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: BEFORE EPHESUS IO7

notice how these prelates display the same ways of life as the
bishops of the Persian empire, 1 how they soon become disliked
by the Armenian naxarars and how Sahak still remains the head of
the Church.

At length, on the request of the Armenian naxarars Sahak was
accepted by Vram V once more as the official head of the Church,
with authority only in spiritual matters. At the same time Smuel
was recognized as having authority in secular and political matters.
The political interest of the Persian Government in Armenian
Church affairs cannot be more clearly seen than in this action. It is
interesting to note that when Sahak was given back his spiritual
authority he was warned by Vram V with the following words:
“I make you swear by your own faith to remain faithful in our ser-
vice and not to contemplate insurrection and be misled by [your]
erroneous common faith with the Byzantines. [If you do so] you
will be the cause of Armenia’s destruction at our hands and our
name will be changed from benefactor into evil-doer.” 3

This was then the situation of Armenia at the time when the
Nestorian controversy started in Constantinople which prepared
the way for the Council of Ephesus. The two Christian traditions
in Armenia were still competing with each other and trying to
win and maintain the upper hand. The Syriac influence was being
weakened under the mighty figure of St Sahak, who rallied around
him St Mastoc and the brilliant group of the first generation of
the Armenian “Translators”, that notable team of intellectuals
who shaped the pattern of Armenian literature and laid the foun-
dations of the Armenian doctrinal position.

It was obvious that in spite of the last attempt of the Syrophile
elements to take the lead in Armenian Christianity with the
direct help of the Persian Government, 3 the tide of Hellenophile

1 See P'arpefi, bk. i, ch. 4; Xorenafi, bk. iii, ch. 65.

1 Xorenafi, bk. iii, ch. ( 5 j. See a summary of these dramatic events in Toume-
bize, Histoire, pp. 499-512.

3 Rend Grousset has termed the situation which is just outlined above as a
“Tentative de rattachement de la chrdtiente armenienne a 1 ’eglise syriaque”
(Histoire, p. 184). It is highly significant to find in the councils of the Church,
under the Persian rule, the names of “bishops from Armenia Thus, in the list of

108 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

influence was not halted. On the contrary, it grew steadily. The
temporary and, indeed, very limited success of the Syrophiles had
not sufficient strength to shake the foundations of the Greek-type
Christianity which was now being consolidated through the in-
tensive work of the “Translators” and particularly through the
cultural relations with Constantinople. In fact, it was so firmly
established under the reign of St Sahak — and mainly through his
labours — that it overshadowed the Syriac type and started it on
its way to weakness and decadence. However, this is not to say
that the latter was uprooted or eliminated altogether. In the second
half of the fifth century it still struggled to survive. But the battle
was already a lost one.

What can we deduce from this story ? What are the points in it
which are relevant to our immediate purpose ?

(a) The Armenian Church was not committed to one particular
school of Christian theology in the first quarter of the fifth cen-
tury. It had maintained its character of a two-fold Christianity
which we described earlier. The interplay between the two Chris-
tian traditions of Greek and Syriac origin and influence had not
yet disappeared. The whole course of the fifth century is marked
by the conflict between the two.

(/;) If the Antiochene theological tradition is associated with
the Syriac-type Christianity in Armenian Church history, then
the reflection of that theology through Syriac influence on Ar-
menian Christianity was not dominant, but was counterbalanced

the bishops of the councils of 424 held by Dadjesus (see Labourt, Christ, Perse,
pp. 119-25; Wigram, Assyrian Church, pp. 120-5) there is the name of “Artasahr
ev. d'Armenie” (see Chabot, Synodkon Orientale, p. 285). Again, later in 486, in
the council held by Acacius (see Labourt, Christ. Perse, pp. 141-54; Wigram
Assyrian Church, pp. 163-6) there is the name of “ Molse d’Armenie” (see Chabot,
Syndicon Orientale, p. 299). With these indications can we conclude that in the
southern provinces of Armenia there were dioceses dependent on the Catholico-
sate of Seleucia, i.e. under the jurisdiction of the Syto-Persian Church ? The Per-
sian influence was so strong in these bordering regions that such a supposition is
not unthinkable at all. If this is true, then it is legitimate to think that Surmak,
Brk'isoy, and Smuel came from this section of the Christian Church in Armenia
when the Persians tried to bring the Armenian Church under tight control by
associating it closely with the Syro-Persian Church.

historical background: BEFORE EPHESUS 109

by the Greek type, through Cappadocian and Constantinopolitan
influence.

(c) If the Armenians turned to centres of Syriac Christian cul-
ture to find assistance in shaping their own alphabet, it was done
partly for technical and partly for political reasons. Their tradi-
tional links with East Syria and North Mesopotamia made this
move all too possible and natural. But it is significant to note, at
the same time, that the general pattern of the Armenian alphabet
was derived from the Greek.

(d) In the third decade of the fifth century and immediately
before the Council of Ephesus, the strengthening of the Armenian
Church’s relationship with Constantinople was a decisive mom-
ent in the history of the doctrinal orientation of the Armenian
Church during the Nestorian controversy; and this orientation
played a vital part in their later attitude to the Council of Chalce-
don, as we shall see.

Now, in view of these points, which we believe represent in a
schematical form — and in the limits of the existing historical evi-
dence — the true picture of the ecclesiastical situation of the time,
what is to be our estimation of P. Peeters’ thesis, which seems to
have found a place in recent studies of the problem by Western
scholars ?

We think that he makes too much of the relationship of the
Armenian Church with the Antiochene tradition. In other words,
he reads too much doctrinal significance into events which do not
by themselves have theological implications or doctrinal conse-
quences. It is equally an exaggeration to distinguish so sharply the
doctrinal divergences of the Antiochene and Alexandrian Schools
by representing these two theological traditions as opposed to
each other and mutually exclusive. In fact, these two traditions
existed side by side in one and the same Church, and the differ-
ences between them were revealed only later, namely in the course
of the Nestorian controversy.

Finally, these two traditions became so sharply opposed to each
other that it was impossible to hold them together. Until the
first quarter of the fifth century both had their lawful place in the

IIO COUNCIL OF CHAICBDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

life of the Church. Therefore to be connected with one of them
did not necessarily mean to be committed to its later interpre-
tations or developments. Briefly, we think that Peeters reads back
the conflict between the Antiochene and Alexandrian christolo-
gies too far.

It is, again, misleading to try to find relations between the
Armenian Church and Alexandria. Given the circumstances in
which Christianity was introduced and spread in Armenia one
cannot expect to see any regular or constant contact with Alex-
andria itself. Later, after the Council of Ephesus and, more par-
ticularly, after the Council of Chalcedon relations were estab-
lished for understandable reasons. At this early stage, Armenians
could know the Alexandrian tradition only through their con-
tacts with Cappadocian Christianity and with Constantinople.
Here, again, Peeters’ way of putting the problem — in an “either-
or” fashion — is not justifiable from the historical point of view.

Therefore, returning to the problem of the relationship of the
Armenian Church to the Antiochene tradition, we can say with
confidence that this relationship did not mean that the seeds of
Nestorian christology were planted in Armenia. If this were the
case, as Peeters wants us to believe , 1 then it would be impossible
to understand such a sudden change as the adherence of the Ar-
menian Church to the Council of Ephesus. It would simply be a
betrayal of a former position, which would have left its traces in
history and literature.

We now turn our attention to later episodes of importance in
the development of the doctrinal situation of the Armenian
Church.

1 “La literature armenienne a commence a s’epanouir dans un terroir sature
d’influences nestoriennes” ( !) (Origines, p. 217).

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (3)
The Ecclesiastical Situation
Between Ephesus and Chalcedon

In the course of the first decade of this period the doctrinal pos-
ition of the Armenian Church became established with such a
firm foundation that the succeeding years of bitter christological
controversies could never shake it. Therefore, it is most important
to see how this happened and in what way it affected the relations
of the Armenian Church with the other Churches of the Byzan-
tine Empire. The process which led to the establishment of that
position is to some extent described in five documents containing
the correspondence of Acacius of Melitene with Sahak Cath-
ohcos and the Armenian naxarars — three letters 1 — and of Proclus,
the Patriarch of Constantinople, again with Sahak Catholicos —
two letters . 2

1 The text of these three letters exists only in Armenian. It is published in the
famous Book of Letters (see pp. 14-21). A Latin translation has been made by Dom
B. Merrier and incorporated in the article of M. Richard. (See Awe, pp. 394-400.)
A French translation is made by M. Tallon, Livre des Lettres, pp. 29-44. I use the
Armenian text as printed originally in the Book of Letters.

2 The letter of Proclus, generally known as the “Tome of Proclus”, in its
present Armenian text is a mutilated and, indeed, a very confused document.
Vardanean tried to reconstruct it. The first parts of the letter which were not
found in the Book of Letters were discovered by K. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean in the Flori-
legium known as “Seal of Faith” (seepp. 109-12). Vardanean inserted them in his
edition. He used also the Greek text and Syriac translation. See the Greek text
in Mansi, v, pp. 421-38; Migne, P.G., t. 65, col. 836-73. A new edition by
Schwartz, A. C.O., t. iv, vol. 2, pp. 187-95. The Syriac translation is found in the
Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene. See Land, Zachariae episcopi Mityienis alior-
umque scripta historica, iii, pp. 103-15; the English translation in Hamilton and

in t

1 12 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

All of these letters come from that period of christological
disputes and ecclesiastical disturbances which upset the life of the
Church in the East from the Council of Ephesus to the Council of
Chalcedon; but more precisely, they belong to the years between
432 and 438. We have already outlined the situation ot the
Church in this period. 1 We must remember that the issues, in
their actual state, were crucial ones. On the one hand, the Antio-
chenes were struggling by every means to save their tradition,
which was so deeply stricken at Ephesus. On the other hand, the
Cyrillines were trying to complete their victory on practical
grounds by removing all the obstacles in the way of the expan-
sion of the christology sanctioned in Ephesus and still opposed by
bishops and theologians, especially in the eastern provinces of the
Byzantine Empire.

Now, the Armenians were not present at the Council of
Ephesus, which was convened in such a haste and urgency by
Theodosius II. But it seems that the immediately subsequent con-
sequences of the Council echoed in Armenia, whence there
started a whole controversy over the writings of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, a controversy that stirred once more the ecclesias-
tical situation in East Syria, Cilicia, Antioch, and Constantinople.
That was the beginning of the controversy later to be known as
the controversy of the Three Chapters. Although it was closed for
some years with the death of Cyril in 444 and with the Council of
Chalcedon (451). which now became the centre of the christo-
logical disputes, it was to be reopened in the sixth century and to
create a real storm in the Eastern Church for more than half a cen-
tury. 2

To what extent and in what way did the beginnings of the
controversy affect the doctrinal orientation of the Armenian
Church? This is the fundamental question with which we are

Brooks, Syriac Chronicle, pp. 24-8 . 1 have used the Armenian text as reconstructed
by Vardanean (see H.A., vol. 35 (1921) col. 12-25), giving at the same time the
references of the corresponding passages in the Greek text of Migne and Schwartz.

1 See above, pp. 35—8.

2 See above, pp. 53-4.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON II3

concerned here while dealing with the history of the origins of
the Three Chapters.

The Armenians were not informed directly or officially of the
decisions of the Council of Ephesus. The canons set up in the
Council were not sent to the leaders of the Armenian Church.
Later, they were brought to Armenia by Armenian Church
divines who had been sent to Constantinople to pursue their
advanced theological studies. But soon after the closure of the
Council the news must have reached the leaders of the Armenian
Church, as can be inferred from the documents related to this
controversy. 1

At this new, Ephesian, phase of the fifth-century christological
controversy, Armenia became involved in it through active par-
ticipation and in a direct way, and sometimes in a responsible
role. Therefore, turning now to the documents mentioned above,
let us see what we can learn from them concerning the doctrinal
orientation of the Armenian Church.

1. The Letter of Acacius to Sahak

Chronologically the letter of Acacius to Sahak 2 * must be taken
first into account. It was written soon after the Council of
Ephesus, most probably in 432. 3 It opens with an assertion that
in Christ all peoples are made one. 4 That unity,

was shaken by the malicious heresy of Nestorius, who was the
bishop of the city of Constantine; when he was found a heretic he
was deprived of his dignity (i.e. episcopacy); so we became aware
that this fierce wolf had attacked the holy Churches, and in some
places had won the simple-minded to his ill-will (i.e. malignity).
Caught by the fear that a stain [of the heresy] might have gained
space also in your Churches, and having in mind the common good
we deemed it good to advise you that these people are moulded in
no other [disease] than in the Jewish disease; 5 for they are mistaken

1 See Additional Note 4. 2 SeeB.L., pp. 14-15.

3 See Richard, Acace, pp. 405-b ; Tallon, Livre des Lettres, pp. 22-3.

4 He quotes Col. 3. 11; cf Gal. 3.28.

5 The christological teaching of Nestorius or of the Antiochene School as a
whole was characterized by their opponents as “Jewish ”, because the Jews did not

1 14 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

about the descent (i.e. Incarnation) of the Lord [that is to say] about
his passing like a man through all suffering except sin. 1

After this general warning he tries to show briefly, on the basis
of the Scriptural evidence, 2 that it is one and the same Lord, one
and the same person who lived and acted as the God-man. He
criticizes those who think of Christ as a person no greater than the
Apostles and the Saints. 3 He complains about people who accuse
him of Theopaschite inclinations 4 which he rejects categorically
by saying :

But we not only do not accept their (i.e. his accusers’) interpretation,
but also we anathematize those who dare say that God even in his
nature underwent the sufferings, and consider the immortal as mor-
tal and the incorruptible and the unstained as corruptible ; they do
not look into the Scriptures and not into the teaching of the 318
Bishops of Nicaea. 5

It is important to translate the concluding passage :

When you receive this letter offer to God continuous prayers for my
weakness. But we fear that people might be found [in your country]
who follow the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia and [might

recognize in Christ the Godhead and regarded him simply as a man. Therefore
those who separated Christ in two were likened to the Jews. This appears several
times in the fifth-century doctrinal documents of the Armenian Church, as we
shall see.

1 B.L.,p. 14.

2 It would be interesting to refer to some of these passages which may help us
in understanding his conception of the unity of Christ’s person. See John 9.35-9;
2 Cor. 13.13 ; Matt. 9.28 ; cf John 6.53.

3 The target of his attacks was perhaps that extreme type of christology which
could not be dissociated or distinguished from Adoptionism. He exaggerates in
his interpretation of the Antiochene christology which, in all probability, he had
in mind.

4 He refers, as Richard has shown convincingly, to the incident which happened
in Chalcedon immediately after the Council of Ephesus when delegations from
the two sides, Alexandrians and Antiochenes, were advocating before Theodosius
the truth of their respective christological systems and Acacius was suddenly caught
out by the Antiochenes for teaching Theopaschism in his utterances at the meet-
ing. (See Richard, Acace, pp. 402-3.)

5 B.L., p. 15.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 11$

have fallen victim to] the pernicious venom of Nestorius and who
might exert influence on the simple-minded. For, as regards the
writings left by the former 1 2 and especially as regards the one written
on the Incarnation, when this problem [of their heresy] was revealed,
the holy bishops assembled in the city of Ephesus decreed that they
all should be burnt. Therefore, take care to keep the faith without
confusion (lit. “muddiness”) so that you may receive the final justi-
fication in purity . 1

There are problems which emerge from this letter and which
have to be met and answered where possible. But before doing so
— and in order to see them in the general context of the whole
situation — let us present the evidence of the other documents that
are closely linked with this.

2. The answer of Sahak to the letter of Acacitis
In the first place, Sahak thanks his colleague, bishop Acacius, for
his care for the preservation of the orthodox faith in Armenia. He
tells Acacius that he is very much pleased with his advice and mes-
sage . 3 He openly says that it was with a real satisfaction that he was
informed about these things, because, he adds, “We were well
content with ourselves in being and remaining in our familiar
ignorance by having taken refuge in our ignorance like in a sohd
fortress .” 4 Then he blames and deplores those who go astray
from the truth and fall into various heresies. He adds :

But I myself wonder how some people try and strive, beyond the
limits of the law, to comprehend the incomprehensible; besides, I
think that the men like these do not know at all the Scriptures and
their power, but have regard only to the Jewish dregs . 5

1 The Armenian article znora surely refers to Theodore and not to Nestorius.
For the reasons see Additional Note 5.

2 B.L., p. 15.

3 Richard, well acquainted with the Patristic literature of the fourth and fifth
centuries, shows a very high appreciation of Sahak’s letter to Acacius. After saying
that he will not comment on it in detail, he adds, “ Notons pourtant le caractere
fleuri du style, que n’alourdit aucune citation biblique, la modestie du ton et la

grande prudence en matiere de dogme” (Acace, p. 406).

* B.L., p. 16. 3 B.L., p. 17.

Il6 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

With this kind ot general statement he proceeds to condemn such
people. The only clear indication of any specific heresy is found in
the following statement:

There is no science as gloomy and depressing as the one which dis-
tinguishes by name two sons or two Lords in Christ; [by this] they
openly declare their impudence without fear and without shame . 1

Then he promises to persecute these men if they appear in Ar-
menia; “If we suddenly find here men of those [heretics] not only
we do not accept or persecute them, but also we do not hesitate
to bring them under heavy punishment .” 2 In his turn, he exhorts
his colleague to watch diligently and to cast out the evil from the
Church of Christ, especially as he has the privilege of the emper-
or’s protection and support . 3 Finally, he concludes by answering
the last paragraph of Acacius’ letter in the following important
passage :

Therefore, our Lord and Father, do not hesitate to remember us in
your holy and acceptable prayers, and if there is anything erroneous
in the contents of our letter, because of our ignorance, do rectify and
be not slow in strengthening our weakness. But as regards the heresy
which you wrote us to abhor, at this time, by the grace of God,
nothing of that sort has reached [us] ; however, if there is something
of that venom hidden, surely we will endeavour to extirpate that
obstacle so that we can glorify Christ in concord . 4

3. The Letter of Acacius to the Armenians

This is the title of a curious document which follows, in the series
of the documents of the Book of Letters, the answer of St Sahak to
Acacius. As can be seen in the first paragraph, it is addressed to
“the honourable and virtuous Armenian naxarars beloved and
servants of Christ, both to the seniors and the juniors”.

1 Ibid. 1 Ibid.

3 A remark which is quite eloquent in showing us how Sahak envied his col-
leagues in the Byzantine empire. This reflects his feeling of the heavy burden put
upon his shoulders by the dilemma of the Armenian Church’s situation under the
Persian rule or overlordship, as we tried to expound it in the previous two chap-
ters.

* B.L., p. 18.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 117

Acacius first gives the reason for his writing to them. He says
that the followers of the teaching of Nestorius and Theodore did
spread the poisonous and pernicious doctrine of their masters even
in Armenia. Therefore in such times of trouble.

We thought it worthy and right to write to you as to God-loving
people, that God by his grace make your saintly and truthful
teachers stand firm and unshaken on the foundation of the true
faith and not yield to the fierce wolf to find time for stealing anyone
from Christ’s flock. 1

Then he explains how the times predicted by Paul 2 have come to
pass. The situation now is so much troubled that Acacius reminds
the Armenians of Christ’s challenging question: “Nevertheless,
when the son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?’’ 3

But those who fear God must keep firm to the religion of the Fathers
and to the teaching of the 318 holy bishops; [that is] the foundation
which they taught as the rule of faith with great veracity and delib-
eration and by the command of the Holy Spirit and [in accordance]
with the teaching of the Apostles and of the Gospels, and which we
recite always in our churches. 4

Again he mentions Nestorius and Theodore as men who tried
to shake that foundation on which the Church was built. There-
fore they became responsible also for other people’s deviation
from the faith in which people were received into the Church
through baptism. But they were soon defeated. The evil was over-
come by the Council of Ephesus. The Nicaean faith was re-estab-
lished. And now,

1 B.L., p. 19.

2 The quoted passages are Acts 20.29, 30 ; 2 Thess. 2.3 .

3 Luke 18.8.

♦ B.L., p. 20. It is generally believed that the insertion of the Creed into the
Eucharistic worship dates not earlier than a.d. 476. Its inclusion is thought to be
the work of Peter the Fuller, the Patriarch of Antioch. (See Kelly, Creeds, pp.
348 if.) Have we, then, in Acacius’ letter information revealing earlier use of the
Creed in the Eucharistic worship ? Was it possible that Peter got the idea from an
existing practice in some Churches? An investigation may prove perhaps useful
and profitable.

Il8 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

if anyone teaches anything outside it (i.e. that faith) and preaches
two sons, one from Mary and another, the Word, who is from God, or
if anyone confesses God as being convertible and changeable in be-
coming flesh, let him, whoever he may be, be anathema ; for it is not
we who anathematize that kind of people but St Paul [himself when]
he says 1 : “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach
to you a gospel more than you received, let him be anathema. 2

Once more he affectionately urges the Armenian naxarars not to
depart from the orthodox faith in which they had been brought
up. Here, he specifies more clearly the reasons of his writing to
them. He says :

I thought it necessary to write this [letter] to your belovedness, be-
cause when Hon, Koth and Anjn, our beloved priests, came to us,
they told us about the good work you did, that you tied up and
sealed the writings of Theodore . 3 Now, let no one persuade you to
give them again to those who readily and pleasingly welcome them
for the destruction of those who accept them and hear [to them] ;
for, if Nestorius was removed from all the Churches how would
Theodore and his books and teaching, which have the same ideas
and the same harmfulness, be acceptable? Do recognize this kind of
people as being false prophets, fraudulent cultivators disguised in the
appearance of the servants of Christ; guard yourselves from those
people and consider them as [having been] anathematized, and do
not accept the false news which they bring to you from the East . 4

Finally, he reminds them of his own humility or unworthiness,
adding that it was only the care for their salvation that impelled
him to write these things. And again exhorting them to remain
faithful to the true faith, he blesses them in the name of the Lord.

These three documents, which we have summarized and trans-
lated in extracts, put before us problems of considerable signifi-
cance for the understanding of the doctrinal situation of the
Armenian Church. But before tackling them we must give an
■Gal. 1.8. *B.L„ p.20.

3 In the text it stands as Diodor, “Diodore” (see Erratum ). We translate it
Theodore (7 ‘coder) thus departing from other scholars’ doctrinal interpretation
of the letter. See Additional Note 6.

*B.L., p. 2i.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 119

account of the other two documents and must complete the evi-
dence provided by this corpus of the correspondence we have
already referred to, in order to understand the situation in a wider
context and in a clearer picture.

4. The Tome ofProclus

We need not give a very detailed summary of this famous christ-
ological document which has already been studied because of its
extremely important christological doctrine formulated in the
aftermath of the Council of Ephesus. In fact, we may remember,
it was written at a very crucial moment in the post-Ephesian
period — the beginning of the controversy over the writings of
Theodore of Mopsuestia, which was the opening phase of the
question of the Three Chapters, as we have already noted. It was
agreed upon by the two leaders of the two groups opposing each
other in the christological battle : John the Patriarch of Antioch
and Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria. Constantinople, Antioch,
and Alexandria joined hands together in 435 through the signa-
tures of their patriarchs on a christological exposition — indeed an
event of singular importance.

It is only natural, therefore, that such a document has drawn the
attention of so many scholars. Here, however, we study the Tome
not in its general lines as far as its christology is concerned, but
especially in its connection with the doctrinal situation of the
Armenian Church. Therefore we must use the Armenian text,
which displays differences from the Greek text of great signifi-
cance.

In the preface of the letter which has been lost in the present
Armenian text — the first two sections of Migne's edition — and
which we follow in the original Greek text, Proclus first shows
his sympathy with the leaders of the Armenian Church for the
troubles which they suffered at the hands of heretics. Then he tells
them that those who are not capable of seeing spiritual things
preach foolishly, because their vision cannot transcend the vis-
ible, earthly aspects of the things they speak of. He speaks of the vir-
tues which the Greeks had taught and he adds that they are not

120 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

sufficient; only the Christian virtues may enable us to see the
truth.

Then follows a brief statement, made in confessional terms, on
the doctrine of Christ’s person. The basic assertion here is that the
Word of God became truly man without suffering (i.e. without
passing through human experience) — ana 9 a>s — and took upon
himself the form of a servant; this, however, does not mean that
his nature was changed or that he added something more to the
Trinity. 1

In the next section he presents an apologia of the faith; he shows
how important it is to hold steadfastly to the right faith. Those
who teach things contrary to that faith, let them be anathematized
as St Paul said (Gal. 1.8). 2

The succeeding passage is a purely christological one, in which
Proclus shows that Christ became man in the truest sense of this
word, that is to say, Christ underwent human experiences “by
necessity”. 3 Thus “nowhere does the Evangelist say that he (i.e.
the Word) came and entered [a] perfect man; but he says that he
became flesh by having descended into the nature itself.” 4 However,
he adds that by saying, “He became flesh” he did not mean that
his nature turned or was converted into flesh. His divine nature
was above convertibility or corruption.

The key words for Proclus’ christology are the two Scrip-
tural expressions: “He became flesh” and “He took the form of a
servant”. When these two “are understood in the orthodox

1 See Vardanean, col. 12-13; cfMigne, col. 860; A.C.O., iv, 2, p. 188.

2 Vardanean, col. 13; cf Migne, col. 860; A.C.O., iv, 2, p. 189. Here, there
is a gap in the Armenian text. Most probably the missing passage (25 lines
in Migne and 14 in A.O.C .) was left out by the compiler of the “ Seal of Faith”
(see above, p. in, n. 2). The reason for this omission must have been the non-
christological content of the passage, as the Greek text shows. In fact, the com-
piler was concerned with such testimonies of Church Fathers which could be
used directly as christological arguments, in support of the anti-Chalcedonian
position.

3 The Armenian word is i harke ; the Greek ivayKalaif.

4 Vardanean, col. 14; cf Migne, col. 860-1 ; A.C.O., p. 189. Here, again, there
is a gap in the Armenian text (7 lines in the Migne and 5 lines in A.C.O.) presum-
ably for the same reason as the previous omission.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 121

sense they become seeds of salvation for us”. He explains the unity
in Christ in metaphysical terms by saying:

As there can be no unity in [the state of ] two different things — for,
if that is the case, then there is no unity (but duality) — likewise the
one as (in the sense of) perfect accord (union) is not divided into two . 1

Again, in the next section, he emphasizes the unity of Christ
being God and having become truly man without being

mutilated in anything from his incorruptible and stainless nature.
... He became man and he saves [us] through [his] sharing in the
sufferings, he who is of the same race and of the same lineage [as
man] ; he paid the debt of the sins for all by [his] dying as [a] man; he,
as evil-hating God, obstructed him who had the power of death,
that is to say, Satan . 2

The opening words of the passage which follows this, are im-
portant and revealing: “Thus it is not so that Christ is one and
God the Word is another 3 — God forbid! — because the divine
nature does not know two Sons.’ ’ After this basic assertion Pro-
clus goes on to show how absurd is a christology in which duality
(aAAos Ka'i aX Xos type of teaching) has found a place. He explains,
furthermore, how contrary is such a doctrine to the way of life
which Christ lived on earth and which is described so clearly in
the Gospels . 4

But just here comes the objection to his conception of the unity

' Vardanean, col. 14; cfMigne, col. 861 ; A.C.O., p. 190.

2 Vardanean, col. 15; cfMigne, col. 861; A.C.O., p. 190. It is very significant
to note that one can describe Christ acting as God and as man; more precisely
according to his divine or human nature. But this can be done only after having
conceived him as One in his being. This is a very important point which appears
over and over again in all the later Armenian theologians. This is, indeed, a con-
ception of unity which sounds quite different from the doctrine of Leo as formu-
lated in his Tome where he describes the two natures as being, so to speak, centres
of activity in themselves. The logical conclusion was naturally the division.

3 It would be perhaps helpful to quote the Greek text: oCk aAAor ovv 6 xpeoros
Kal a AAo? 6 ffeos* Ao'yor {tf ydvotro).

* Vardanean, col. 16-18; cf Migne, col. 864-5; A.C.O., p. 191. Obviously in
this passage he has in mind as his target those of the Antiochene theologians who
distinguished very sharply between man and the Word of God in Christ.

(

122 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

of Christ’s person. He faces it boldly. Here are both the objection
and his answer given straightforwardly:

If they (i.e. the opponents) say the Trinity is of one substance 1 and the
Trinity is without passions and sufferings; and if the Trinity is with-
out passions and sufferings, then the Word of God also is without
sufferings ; it follows that he who was crucified was someone other
than God the Word who is without sufferings . 2

Proclus first makes his opponents look ridiculous for this very
weak objection, which he likens to a spider’s web— even looser
than that — and to script written upon water! Then he answers the
objection by saying that it is not the Word God who suffered but
the Word Incarnate. Everyone knows that the divine nature in it-
self is above all suffering. But God wanted to overcome death
which is the chief of all sufferings, and, therefore, he became flesh
through the Virgin. His becoming flesh or his taking the form of a
servant did not diminish his Godhead, and it was through his
body that he overcame the sufferings . 3

The succeeding passage elaborates this point. Proclus says that
it was necessary for our salvation that the Word should become
man. However, in becoming man he remained the same. “It is the
same that is both God and man, not that [he is] divided into two,
but [that] he is and remains one and the same.” Therefore Christ
is the Word God , 4

1 The Armenian word is miazor “of the one (same) power”. It stands for the
Greek opoovoiog.

2 Vardanean, col. 1 8 ; cfMigne, col. 865; A.C.O., p. 191. This is probably the
ground for accusations charging Proclus of Theopaschism. Although Richard has
tried to dear him from any responsibility in this respect, in so far as his authorship
of the famous formula ctg rrjg TpidSog ecrrav/xotfij is concerned (see Richard,
Proclus), yet there seem to have been rumours about Proclus’ “Theopaschism”;
for this reference and, more particularly, the way in which he makes the
accusations look ridiculous, show this quite clearly (cf Amann, Theopaschiles,
col. 506).

3 See Vardanean, col. 18-19; cfMigne, col. 865; A.C.O., pp. 191-2. Here can
be seen in an embryonic form, the doctrine of “economy” which, again, later
became a corner-stone in the system ofMonophysite christology.

4 See Vardanean, col, 19; cfMigne, col. 865-8 ; A.C.O., pp. 191-2. Scriptural
passages such as 1 Cor. 8.6; John 1.1-3 are quoted in support of this statement.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 123

Again, some may bring forth passages from the Scriptures 1
where Christ is spoken of as a man, and they may use them as
arguments in asserting the separation they have in mind. But
they are either ignorant or malicious, because they do not see
the meaning of the Scriptures in the right way. For it is all too
evident that in the beginning Christ was not a man but only
God. When he became man he took our nature in its com-
plete form. And it is because of this that “as he is of the one
substance of the Father according to the divinity, he is also of the
same generation of the Virgin according to the flesh”. Then they
must accept that Christ is not a man as different from God the
Word, but “the same God the Word who created the world,
gave the Law, inspired the Prophets and, in the end, took flesh
and chose the Apostles for the salvation of the Gentiles and the
peoples”. 2

Having thus refuted the heretics, he exclaims: “Let us flee
from those trouble-makers and from the overflowing waters
of the filthy fallacy.” He mentions by name Arius, Euno-
mius, and Macedon. He invites the recipients of his letter to
join him in following St Paul’s exhortation (Eph. 2.14) and let
the heretics dread the condemnation of those who introduce
newly invented impieties and divide into two him who united the
divided. 3

There follows rather a long passage in which he illustrates the
point that, according to the Scriptural evidence taken from both
the Old and New Testaments, 4 Christ is one. He who was born
of the Virgin, he who in the course of time grew in stature accord-
ing to the flesh, he who bore all the sufferings of the flesh, is he
who was before Abraham and through whom the world was
created. 5

In the closing section 6 he first repeats his exhortation that the

1 Namely Acts 2.22; 17.31 ;John 8.40.

* Vardenean, col. 20; cfMigne, col. 868 ; A.C.O., p. 193.

3 See Vardanean, col. 20-1 ; cfMigne, col. 869; A.C.O., p. 193.

4 See John 8.58; Rom. 9.4, s;Exod. 4.22;Eph. 4.10; Gal. 1.15.

5 See Vardanean, col. 21-3 ; cfMigne, col. 869-72 ;A.C.O., pp. 193-4.

6 See Vardanean, col. 23-5 ; cfMigne, col. 872-3 ; A.C.O., pp. 194-5.

124 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

faithful followers of Christ should worship him in the right way,
because they have “ the mind of Christ ”. 1
Then he gives the reason why he wrote this letter. He says :

We wrote all these things to your belovedness, because we became
aware 2 (lit: “we heard”) that some people, evil-speakers and foolish,
have fallen upon your country and want to contort the purity, the
unadorned, unartificial beauty of the orthodox faith with malicious
books and by adversity and fallacious, false-pretentious knowledge.

He reminds his readers of St Paul’s warning against the insidious
people 3 and of the only foundation of Christ’s Church 4 which
must not be confounded with any human teaching.

Here are a few lines which are not found in the Greek text.
They are of the greatest importance for our immediate purpose.
So I translate them :

Now, hold [together] steadfastly in one spirit and as one person; be,
by faith, athletes of the Gospel and not stricken by anathema and
condemnation with Nestorius and Theodore who had been his
teacher and who showed forth the evil plant and the malicious novel-
ties which exceeded the denial of the Jews and, like the heresy of the
Ariarts and others who deviated from the glory of the holiness and
from the right faith ; they were anathematized by all the peoples, and
their books [containing] perverse ideas were burnt before all the
people. You, too, keep yourselves safe from them and do the same
as the assembly of the bishops did, and let no one regard this tem-
porary shame 5 as his own and inherit the eternal shame and be con-
demned and destroyed with them in the hell . 6

1 See i Cor. 2.16.

2 Here we have ail important difference between the Armenian and Greek

texts. In the Greek we read : Tavra npis rrjv vptTfpav e-neoTttXapev ttyamjv tK
t utv ufUTtpoji' 7 TpoTpan€VT€f XtfteXXuiv tSv npo r s' iOc . We shall speak

of the significance of this difference later when we try to reconstruct the doctrinal
situation as represented in these documents.

3 Col. 2.8. 4 See 1 Cor. 3. 11.

5 As Tallon suggests (see Livre des Lcttres, p. 71) this “shame” must be the shame

of having followed for a while these false doctrines. The author of this passage
wants to place the responsibility on the originators of the heresy and urges his
readers not to consider it as their own personal belief.

6 Vardanean, col. 24.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 125

After this digression, the Armenian text agrees with the Greek.
The concluding words are worth translating :

But you keep firm to the teaching which you received from the Holy
Fathers who were assembled in the Synod of Nicaea and who
affirmed the holy and glorious faith; which doctrine [was taught] by
the holy and blessed Basil and Gregory 1 and by all who are like
them, and who maintained the holy faith in holiness and concord in
their own lives, and whose names arc written in the “Book of Life”
(Phil. 4.3). 2

5. The answer of Sahak and Mastoc to the letter ofProchis
The elaborate form of this letter is surprising. Moreover, in many
places exactly the same phrases are used as those found in Sahak’s
answer to Acacius, which we have already reviewed. The diff-
erences consist mainly in the addition of some passages which are
concerned with the faith in general, and with the doctrine of
Christ’s person in particular. Therefore, we shall not give a full
account of this document but shall present briefly these differ-
ences.

The first part of the letter is very similar — only with slight elab-
orations in the expression — to the first sections of the answer to
Acacius. The first difference is noticed in the passage in which
Sahak and Mastoc tell their colleague that they have sent mes-
sengers to the neighbourhood of the catholicosate and have given
them strict orders to warn the people not to listen to such ‘ ‘ bar-
barians” (i.e. heretics) and not to accept their pernicious and des-
tructive heretical teaching. Whereas, in the letter addressed to
Acacius, Sahak had promised to persecute such people if they ever
appeared.

Another difference is seen in the passage which immediately
follows this one. Here we have a confession of faith which opens
with the words of the Nicene Creed and is continued with form-
ulas taken directly from the Didascalia 318 Patrum NicaenorumJ

1 In all probability he refers to St Gregory of Nazianzus.

2 Vardanean, col. 24-s ; cf Migne, col. 873 ; A.C.O., p. 195.

3 Lebon has attempted to reconstruct the Greek text by a retroversion. (See his
Symboles, p. 850.)

126 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

On the specific problem of the Incarnation, here is their view

briefly stated:

Concerning the Incarnation 1 of the Son we believe as follows : He
took upon himself to become perfect man from Mary the God-
bearer {8e6roKos) by the Holy Spirit by assuming soul and body
truly and not feignedly; it is in this way that he achieved the salva-
tion of our humanity; he truly underwent the sufferings, not be-
cause he himself was indebted to the sufferings — for Godhead is
exempt from sufferings — but [it was] for us [that] he took upon him-
self the sufferings, was crucified and buried and the third day rose
and ascended into heaven and sat at the right [side] of the Father,
and he shall come [again] to judge the quick and the dead. 2

Then they attack the heretics who

contrive to find two sons and two temples in their minds (i.e. imag-
ination) ; they [dare] to think without fear and without shame, and
their shameful [thoughts] they declare openly [and] with impu-
dence. For, our Lord Jesus Christ by the will of his Father had com-
passion upon the wandering of men. The Word which proceeded
from the heart of the Father wanted to please him by becoming
flesh through the covering of the Holy Spirit and in the womb of the
holy Virgin. He received the flesh worn out by the treachery of
Satan and turned into coijruption [in order] to restore [it] in body,
soul, and spirit so that the first creature created incorruptible might
appear at the second birth [i.e.] at the resurrection of the dead; he
took real (i.e. true) flesh for us and sowed in us. by faith, the div-
inity, and wrought miracles and signs so that we might become
faithful believers in his divinity. He took upon himself thirst and
hunger, fatigue and sleep, not that [his] divinity was being defeated
(i.e, overcome) in the sufferings of the flesh, but that [he could] shut
the shameless mouths and the tongues sharpened with iniquity which
already are prepared to speak blasphemies ; they (i.e. these latter) say
[that] his coming did not take place in truth but by feigning, [that
is to say] in false appearances to the eyes. He endured to take upon
himself the slaps and the insults, the cross and the death not as if he

1 The Armenian word is marmnazdefut'iwn which literally means “putting on

himself the flesh ” .

1 B.L.,p. io.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON I27

himself was indebted or worthy for them, neither was he worthy for
the death [in which] he died, because the Godhead is immortal. But
[he died] so that he might abrogate through the Gospel and [his]
precious blood the dishonour which came [to us] because of our sins
and make us worthy for washing . 1

Then, after the exposition of this simple and orthodox faith,
they attack those who depart from it. In the same way as Sahak
had asked Acacius, they ask now also Proclus to watch diligently
and to use all the imperial power of the King (i.e. the Byzantine
emperor) to sweep away these heresies; on their part they prom-
ise to do the same thing to those who appear here and there in
their country. In exactly the same words as those addressed to
Acacius they ask for Proclus’ prayers.

Finally, in the last passage there is a short paragraph where
Theodore of Mopsuestia is mentioned :

And that there are here disciples (“followers”) of Theodore of Mop-
suestia, at this time, by the grace of God, nothing like that has been
revealed. But if it is hidden in the rust of impurity, surely we will
endeavour to extirpate that obstacle and put away the scandal, so
that we may become worthy to render glory to God for the con-
cord [among us] like the unity which is glorified among you . 2

These five documents, happily preserved, illuminate to a great
extent our understanding of the background of the Armenian
doctrinal position vis-a-vis the Council of Chalcedon. But, at the
same time, they are not completely self-explanatory : they pose a
number of questions which we have to answer by examining
other sources of information. Moreover, there are contradictory
statements in them which have to be explained, if possible, by
the help of other sources. To give some examples: What do we
understand precisely by Acacius’ allegation that Theodore’s works
had been translated into Armenian? Why in the Armenian text of
Proclus’ letter is the name of Theodore added ? Why, in the an-
swers to both Acacius and Proclus, does Sahak Catholicos almost
deny the existence of followers of Theodore in Armenia ? Why

1 B.L., pp. 11-12.

2 B.L., p. 13.

128 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

did Acacius write two letters instead of one? Why did he address
the second to the Armenian feudal princes and not to the head of
the Church? Who are the three priests mentioned in this second
letter and what is their part in the controversy? And there are
many similar questions. It becomes obvious that we have to look
for further information about the doctrinal situation in Armenia
elsewhere in order to reconstruct the true picture of that situation,
which is only hinted at in these documents.

6. The Testimony of the Armenian historiographers
Looking into the Armenian sources themselves we find no great
help, The Armenian writers of the fifth century give us no direct
and open evidence on this controversy as such. They speak of the
clash between Syrophile and Hellenophile orientations, but hardly
mention names or give precise information.

However, we find two testimonies <which are exceptions and
cast some light on the situation. The first comes from Koriwn,
who at the end of his “Life of Mastoc” having completed the
account of the life and work of St Sahak and St Mastoc and be-
fore relating their death, introduces the following passage, which
stands somewhat out of the context of his narrative. 1 Here is the
translation :

In that time there were brought into Armenia fallacious and friv-
olous books left by a certain Greek whose name was Theodore. 2 On
this [matter] the bishops of the Churches assembled in Synod notified

1 Akinean suspects the authenticity of this passage. He thinks that there are ex-
pressions in it which are not familiar to Koriwn’s style. Again, the place of this
passage in Koriwn’s text — in the closing section — as it stands to-day does not
seem to be the proper context. Therefore he removes it from where it stands now
and inserts it in an earlier section in his own edition of Koriwn’s work. In this
section Koriwn speaks of the journey of MastOf’s disciples to Constantinople.
That seems to him the proper context of the passage in question, because the con-
troversy over Theodore’s writings was connected with the disciples of Sahak and
Mastoc, as we shall see later. (See Akinean, Koriwn, p. 44, and particularly
pp. 104-5, n. 75.)

2 All the manuscripts have it as T'eodios (Theodios) which obviously is a mistake
of transcription. In all the printed texts of Koriwn’s work it is put as T'eodoros
(Theodoras). (See Abelean, Koriwn, p. 44; Fenteglean, Koriwn, pp. 59-60.)

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 129

and instructed the worshippers of the true faith, Sahak and Mastoc.
These with their truth-loving diligence removed them (i.e. the
books) away and rejected them by casting them out of the frontiers
of their country so that no diabolic smoke be added to [their] lum-
inous doctrine. 1

The second piece of evidence comes from Movses Xorenaci
who, years after the controversy, writing the general history ol
Armenia refers to the same episode in more precise and clear
terms. In fact, he devotes a whole chapter 2 to the Council of
Ephesus where, after a brief description of the Council as such,
he adds this singularly important passage :

And because Sahak the Great and Mesrop did not happen to be at
that Council, Cyril the Alexandrian and Proclus and Acacius, the
bishops of the cities of Constantinople and Melitene, wrote to them
and warned them, because they heard that some of the heterodox
disciples taking [with them] the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
the teacher of Nestorius and the disciple of Diodore, had gone to
Armenia. Afterwards, our Translators whose names we mentioned
before 3 came [back] and found Sahak and Mesrop in Astisat of Taron,
and handed them the letters (i.e. of the Church Fathers referred to)
and the canons of Ephesus, six in number, drawn up under regu-
lated headings and the accurate copy of the Scriptures.

It is surprising that in the succeeding passage nothing is said about
the consequences of the reception of the letters and the six canons
of Ephesus. The other fragmentary information provided by these
two writers concerning the doctrinal situation of the Armenian
Church, namely the sending of the students to Byzantium, we
shall take into account later when we attempt a reconstruction of
the situation as a whole. We may now turn to foreign sources.

7. The evidence of the foreign sources

In the first place, we have a very important account of some events
closely connected with this situation in Innocentius Maroniae:

1 Koriwn, p. 86.

2 Bk. iii, ch. 61: “On the Council of Ephesus which was [convened] for [the
case of] the impious Nestorius.”

3 See bk, iii, ch. 60, where he speaks of these Translators going to Byzantium.

130 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENtAN CHURCH

Incipit sancti Imiocenti Episcopi Maroniae de his qui unum ex Trinitate
vel main Subsistentiam sen personam Dominum nostrum Iesum Chris-
tum dubitant conjiteri. Here I quote the Latin translation of the pas-
sage which is concerned with the problem under discussion, from
Schwartz’s edition. 1

Post Nestorii danmationem, cum sectatores eius mortiferos libros
illius in publicum proferre non possent, quia et anathematibus a
sancta synodo quae primum apud Ephesum conuenerat, editis et
imperiali constitutione prohibiti fuerant Jectitari coeperunt iam
Theodori Mampsuestanae ciuitatis episcopi, qui quondam Nestorii
magister extiterat, circumferre uolumina et simplices quosque morti-
feris laqueis inretire. Tantum uero studii gesserunt per eum eiusdem
in Nestorii dilatare contagia, ut ipsa uolumina eius ad laesionem et
interitum simplicissimarum, ut dictum est, animarum in linguam
Syroruni Armenorum Persarumqua transferred. Sed ubi haec agnou-
erunt beatae memoriae uiri Rabbula Edessenae et Acacius Meli-
tinae ciuitatis antistites, scripserunt in Armeniam sanctis episcopis ne
ea susdperent, apostolice denuntiantes atque dicentes: uidete canes,
uidete malos operarios, uidete condsionem. (See Phil. 3.2). Ciliciae
uero episcopis insimulantibus eosdem uiros Rabbulam et Acacium
quod non ex caritate hoc, sed ex aemulatione atque contentio ne
fecissent, in unum omnes Armeniae regionis sanctissimi conuen-
ientes episcopi duos venerabiles presbyteros Leontium et Abelium
ad urbem regiam Constantinopolim destinarunt; qui libellos pro
more facientes nec non et unum uolumen blasphemiarum Theodori
deferentes secum beatissimo Proclo Constantinopoliranae urbis
archiepiscopo supplices obtulerunt, scire desiderantes quaenam doc-
trina, utrum Theodori an Rabbulae et Acacii episcoporum uera esse
probaretur. Beatissimus itaque Proclus et libellos Armeniorum et
uolumen Theodori diligenter examinans, admirabilem illam ad
Armenios scripsit epistolam; quam sumens Basilius quidam dia-
conus Alexandriam uenit et hbellos Armeniorum suis annectens
obtulit beatissimo Cyrillo eiusdem duitatis antistiti. Quibus, ut
fertur ualde permotus aduersus Theodorum et Diodorum nrirabile
uolumen explicuit. Post haec antefatus Basilius Constantinopolim
ueniens alios libellos composuit et sancto archiepiscopo Proclo
porrexit, cuncta quae beatissimo Cyrillo antehac obtulerat suis libel—
1 See A.C.O., t. iv, vol. 2, pp. 68 ff.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 131

lis adsocians. Sed beatissimus Proclus et priusquam Basilii preces
acciperet, Armeniorum, ut dictum est, libellis et Theodori uolumine,
qui iuxta Nestorii similitudinem pro Trinitate quaternitatem docere
deprehendebatur, instructus, illam superius nuncupatem scripsit
epistolam. Puto namque quia secundam post haec edidit paginam,
propter quod Basilius in suis libellis unam tantum Alexandriam se
detulisse memorauit; uerumtamen, siue prius hanc seu postea scrip-
serit, sic in ea docuit, libros Theodori esse uitandos sicut Arii
Eunomiique blasphemias.

This is reproduced with only slight differences by the Carta-
genian deacon, Liberatus (sixth century) in his Breviarium Causae
nestorianorum et eutychianorum

The letter of the Armenians addressed to Proclus, which is
mentioned in the passage quoted above has fortunately been pre-
served in a Syriac translation and published by P. Bedjan in his
Syriac edition of Nestorius’ Heraclides. 1 2 Here I reproduce it in a
French translation made by Mgr Dib and incorporated in an
article by Mgr R. Devreesse. 3

Copie de la lettre des eveques et des pretres de la Grande Armenie
a Proclus, eveque fidele de Constantinople, au sujet des ecrits de
Theodore de Mopsueste.

Leonce et Abel, pretres de la Grande Armenie, et les freres qui sont
avec nous, au saint et aime de Dieu, eveque de l’hglise catholique et
apostolique, Proclus.

Nous croyons, 6 Reverend, selon la tradition de nos Peres, les eveques
de la ville de Nicee, et nous confessons la vraie foi orthodoxe. Des
hommes habitant en Orient sont venus chez nous. Ils voulaient nous
troubler comme on trouble des gens simples, ayant apporte avec eux
un ecrit de Theodore, eveque de Mopsueste. Ce Theodore, en effet,

1 See P.L., t. 68, col. 989-90 : De Nestorianorum Scandalo et monachis Armeniae.

2 See Appendix I, pp. 594-6. It is taken from a manuscript of the British
Museum (No. Add. 14,557) of the seventh century. (See preface, pp. xxxix-xl.)
A Greek reconstruction is attempted by Schwartz, see A.C.O., t. iv, vol. 2, Prae-
fatio, pp. xxvii-xxviii.

3 See Trois Chapitres, pp. 543-65. Reprinted in Essai, pp. 136-7 whence 1 have
quoted it here.

132 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

ainsi que nous !e savons par les ecrits du saint Mar Rabboula, eveque
d’F.desse, et de Mar Acace de Melitene, qui Font bien montre, est un
homme pervers et un perturbateur de la foi qui est imperturbable.
Des hommes sont venus de Cilicie a nous et ont attaque Acace, le
saint eveque de Melitene, et le religieux Rabboula, eveque d’Edesse,
disant que ces demiers ont rejete par inimitie et par haine les ecrits
de Theodore. Aussi, a cause de Ta Pitie, les saints eveques ont-ils juge
a propos de nous envoyer ici pour apprendre exactement de toi si
ces livres et leurs auteurs sont vraiment pervers.

Nous te demandons done de nous preparer des ecrits pour que nous
sachions, nos mandants et nous, si nous devons faire confiance a
ceux qui sont venus de Cilicie avec les livres de Theodore, ou nous
en tenir a l’ecrit des saints eveques Rabboula et Acace. En outre,
nous avons un ouvrage de Theodore. Nous te prions de voir si ce
qui est ccrit est juste, afin que, en consideration de l’examen de Ta
Saintete, les hommes, les femmes et les enfants de la Grande Ar-
menie et tout le peuple de la sainte Eglise s’attachent a la foi qui
avait ete prechee d’une maniere complete et ferme aux Romains, ct
que, avec eux, la grace de Dieu aidant, les personnes venues de Cil-
icie pour nous induire en erreur trouvent leur voie dans le libelle de
ta foi, se convertissent et adherent a la doctrine des Apotres, aifirmee
par les 318 Peres. Quant a nous, nous confessons cette foi telle
qu’elle est, d’un meme coeur et d’une merae ame. Nous sommes
lies par toutes les arteres les uns aux autres comme de vrais freres et
a Finstar des membres qui composent le corps. Nous n’ avons pas
ete troubles mais nos adversaires trament des complots. Soyons unis,
puisque nous confessons un seul Seigneur, une seule foi, vraie et bien
affermie dans nos furies. Nous conserverons le souvenir de Ta Pitie.

Wc have now almost completed the presentation of the evi-
dence at hand on the doctrinal situation of the Armenian Church
in the period between the Council of Ephesus and the Council of
Constantinople. Let us now attempt to reconstruct that situation as
clearly as possible.

Given the fact that the Armenian Church was in relationship
with Syriac-speaking Christianity we could easily accept, a
priori , that some works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other
Antiochene writers could have been translated into Armenian.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 1 3 3

But we cannot be very sure about it, not because there is nothing
preserved of these translations , 1 but because when the great move-
ment of translation took its full course after the invention of the
Armenian alphabet in the thirties of the fifth century, Theodore’s
works were already becoming a matter of controversy by being
considered as the real source of Nestorianism. Furthermore, the
historical data which we reviewed above gives us quite clear
indications of a special translation of a special work with a special
purpose. That special work in question was Theodore’s De
Incarnatione . 2

Therefore, the first fact which the historical evidence puts be-
fore us is the translation into Armenian of certain writings of
Theodore, among them being, with all probability, his De
Incarnatione. This happened immediately after the Council of
Ephesus. We must not think, therefore, that Theodore’s works
were translated into Armenian just in the same way as were the
works of a Chrysostom, or a Basil, or a Gregory of Nazianzus;
that is to say, for general theological and educational reasons. At
least, our sources cannot allow us such a conclusion.

We said that Theodore’s “books” were translated for a definite,
special purpose. What was it? Innocentius Maroniae’s account
gives us quite a satisfactory answer. After the condemnation of
Nestorius, when his works were prohibited and it became

1 The later official condemnation of the Three Chapters would have put these
translations, if they ever existed, under some kind of “index” and surely they
would not have any chance of survival.

1 See Acacius' letter (above, p. i is); cf Innocentius’ treatise (above, p. 130-1);
the letter of the two Armenian priests (above, p. 131). See also the testimonies of
the Armenian historians, who tell us that Theodore’s writings were brought into
Armenia by certain people and with a specific intention or a particular purpose.
(See above, pp, 128, 129.) The explicit reference to a particular book raises no
doubt or objection to our understanding of the passages referred to. But the word
"books”, used in the plural, may seem to refer to several writings. But it may also
refer to the fifteen books of De Incarnatione. As Devreesse shows, Cyril, with Fec-
undus ofHermiane, mentions the De Incarnatione as fhftXia and Justinian, with
Leontius of Byzantium, as Adyot. (See Essai, p. 44.) Devreesse has made also an
attempt to reconstruct the original plan of the work through the surviving frag-
ments. (See ibid., pp. 44-8.) For its importance in the christological disputes of
the time see Sullivan, Christology, pp. 44 ff.

134 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

dangerous to read them, the supporters of his teaching began to
circulate Theodore’s writings in order to rescue their doctrine
from destruction, because that doctrine was basically the teach-
ing of Theodore. Moreover, in order to propagate their doctrine,
now stricken in the Byzantine Empire, they began to translate
Theodore’s works — again with all probability giving the first place
to the De Incarnatione — into Syriac, Armenian, and Persian . 1
Tliis must have been the cause of the campaign against Theo-
dore’s writings . 2 Armenia became the battlefield which decided
the line that the Armenians followed later. Moreover, the battle
itself provided an opportunity for clarifying the attitudes to
Theodore’s “orthodoxy” on the larger scene of the ecclesiastical
life of the Byzantine Empire.

Again, confining our interpretation only to the evidence of
these documents, we are fully justified in saying that there were
in Armenia followers of Theodore who tried to propagate his
teaching in the Armenian Church through the translations of his
works, namely of the De Incarnatione. In this they were guided
and helped by the representatives of the Antiochene School who
struggled hard for the survival of their theology after the con-
demnation of Nestorius.

There are some points to be noted here. First of all, the initia-
tive for this work came from outside. Koriwn and Xorenaci
do not give us any hint of the precise place or of the persons who
started this work in Armenia. The terms they use are very vague
on this point and very general indeed . 3 But in the letter of the two
Armenian priests addressed to Proclus these people are identified
as “people who live in the East”. There is also a second indication
to their identity. We are told that they had some connection with
Cilicia, the stronghold of Nestorianism in the period immediately
following the Council of Ephesus. This connection raises no

1 For further historical evidence on this point see d’Ales, Leltre d'lbas, p. 13;
cf Peeters, Jeremie, p. 21.

2 See Additional Note 7.

3 See above, pp. 128, 129. Only Xorenafi identifies the persons as “some dis-
ciples of Theodore

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON I35

doubt, because when Rabboula and Acacius warned the Armen-
ians about Theodore, the two Armenian priests who went to
Proclus said in their letter that “men from Cilicia’’ came to them
in Armenia and accused Rabboula and Acacius by saying that
they attacked Theodore out of personal enmity and hatred against
him (and not out of their concern for the orthodox faith). There-
fore these “Orientals” were people who came either from Ana-
tolia in the west of Armenia — usually known in this time of
christological controversies as the Orient 1 — or from the eas-
tern borders of Armenia, i.e. from the Persian Church — the word
being taken this time in a purely geographical sense. The first
supposition seems more likely, because the Nestorian victory was
not yet achieved in the Persian Church at this early stage.

Therefore we can say in conclusion that the first phase in the
doctrinal situation in Armenia shows us an attempt to win Ar-
menia to the Nestorian side.

The second phase is the counter-attack. We have already noted
that in the third decade of the fifth century the Armenian Church
had taken a decisive step towards the reopening of its relation-
ship with Constantinople and other Greek Christian centres, Meli-
tene being the nearest and the most frequently visited one among
them. Acacius of Melitene had been the host of the ‘ ‘ Father of
Armenian Literature”, St Mesrop Mastoc. He had taken care of
the education of Mastoc’s disciples who had been entrusted to him
by the latter. Therefore, it was easy for him to know what was
happening in Armenia, especially in the field of ecclesiastical life.
Being himself a determined and devoted Cyrilline, he would try
to have the Armenian Church on his side in the hard struggle
against the Nestorianism surviving on the eastern borders oi the
Byzantine Empire. Thus, it is not surprising at all to see him
opening the counter-attack with his letter addressed to the head of

1 From the time of Diocletian, Cilicia, Syria, and some other neighbouring coun-
tries were constituted in a single administrative unit called the “Diocese of
Orient”, one of the twelve dioceses which were set up by Diocletian in his ad-
ministrative reforms. (See Stein, Bas- Empire, t. i, pp. 70, 439 n. 2J, 440 n. 36; see
also maps 2 and 3 at the end of t. i.)

136 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak. 1 His concern and active
intervention is proved with his second letter written later and
addressed this time to the Armenian naxarars.

In his first letter Acacius expresses himself very cautiously. He
denounces categorically the teaching of Nestorius and Theodore.
However, he is not so categorical when he comes to speak about
the followers of Nestorius and Theodore in Armenia. He is
“caught by the fear” that there might be found followers of
them. Surely, he must have heard of some attempts made with
the aim of propagating Theodore’s “books” in Armenia. Other-
wise, his intervention cannot be explained. At the same time, we
know that he had always been an ardent and zealous advocate of
the Council of Ephesus and a bitter opponent of Theodore and
the Antiochenes as a whole. Why, then, does he approach the
problem so cautiously?

The answer, we think, may be found in the fact that he was not
informed officially or asked for anything by Sahak. In other words
his information had reached him through unofficial channels. In
all probability it was the Armenian students and visitors in Meli-
tene who gave him the information. Therefore we presume that
the reason for his cautious attitude was that he wanted to avoid the
impression that he was intervening in the affairs of the Armenian
Church by unofficial means. This was necessary if he expected, as
he did, to find a friendly response from the official authorities of
the Armenian Church.

Secondly, we must remember that this was the beginning of an
attack which put under fire a man who had been, and still was,
held in the highest esteem in that part of the world for many
years before the Council of Ephesus. It is not improbable, as we
already said, that Theodore might have enjoyed the same high
respect also in certain quarters or circles in Armenia. Therefore,
Acacius had to be very tactful in condemning the Armenian fol-
lowers of such a person.

Why did he write the second letter and why did he address it so

1 It is not improbable that he wrote this letter on Rabboula’s instigation, as
Richard suggests. See Additional Note 8.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON I37

generally “to the Armenians” and not again to Sahak as might be
reasonably expected? Was it because Sahak had not shown the
expected readiness to follow his advice strictly, as we shall see in a
moment? Why did he urge the Armenian princes to carry on the
anti-Theodorean campaign? Who were these naxarars ? What
authority did they possess? The documents themselves do not
provide us with all the necessary and adequate answers. Never-
theless, we can make the following points.

First of all, there is one obvious reason for his writing. As he
says, three priests 1 had come to him and informed him of the
good works these naxarars had done by withdrawing Theodore’s
writings from the public. Here, in this letter, he seems more con-
fident and sure about his knowledge of the introduction of Theo-
dore’s writings into Armenia, and therefore he is more emphatic
in his denunciation . 2 It is quite evident that the anti-Theodorean
movement had now 3 started in Armenia and Acacius was trying
here to encourage it and to avoid any lapse in it.

Why did he write to these naxarars ? This question brings us to
the third phase in the doctrinal situation of Armenia: the res-
ponse.

Sahak, in his answer to Acacius’ letter, with all due respect and
affection sincerely expressed, did not seem to be very much
affected by Acacius’ suspicion of the existence of Theodore’s
followers in Armenia. He openly denied the existence of those
heretics, promising that if they suddenly should appear he would
not hesitate to bring them under heavy punishment . 4

How is this answer to be explained? Is there a contradiction
between what Acacius knows and what Sahak comes now to
deny? And if this is the case, what are the implications of this
contradiction? Can it be explained by supposing that Sahak
simply ignored the existence of such heretics or that Acacius’

1 For the problem of the identity of these three priests, see Additional Note 9.

3 See above, p. 1 1 8.

3 The date of this letter falls between 433 and 43s. See Tallon, LiVre des Lettres,
pp. 27-8. Richard’s dating (a.d, 438, see Acace, pp. 410-11) is not acceptable.

4 See above, p. 116.

138 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

suspicion was an exaggeration due to his over-zealous care for
Ephesian orthodoxy now being challenged in the name of
Theodore ?

It is difficult to subscribe to either of these two suppositions,
because, on the one hand, Acacius in his second letter confirms
what he had said rather reservedly or hesitantly in the first, as we
saw, and, on the other hand, Sahak gives the same answer this
time to Proclus three years later, in 435, when the controversy had
been intensified to such an extent that even Proclus was asked to
intervene, as Innocentius relates and as the letter of the two Ar-
menian priests confirms.

Therefore, there must have been a good reason for Sahak to
deny the fact or, perhaps, more precisely, to minimize its impor-
tance. His attitude, however, was not the only response. Our
documents have other things to say about the reaction of the
Armenians to this twofold intervention of opposite sides in the
christological controversy of the time. In that wider context of
the Armenian reaction Sahak’s attitude can be better understood.

According to Innocentius’ record of the events, the Armenian
bishops, being somewhat perplexed by the contradictory inter-
ventions of Acacius and Rabboula on the one hand, and of the
Cilician bishops on the other, took counsel and sent two priests to
Constantinople giving them a letter and a “book” containing
“the blasphemies” of Theodore. These two priests presented the
letter and the “book” to Proclus, and asked him to judge which
teaching was right, Theodore’s or Acacius’ ? On this request Proc-
lus wrote his famous Tome.

The same story can be read in a more elaborate form in the
letter of the Armenian priests themselves. These, Leontius and
Abel, in a letter presented as being sent by the “bishops and priests
of Armenia Major” and addressed to Proclus, say almost exactly
the same things as Innocentius has related.

Everything is clear so far. But there are certain points in this
letter which make us doubt its origin as represented by its title.
Thus, whereas here, in the title, it is said to be the letter sent by
the “bishops and priests of Armenia Major”, in the text it is the

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 139

two priests themselves who ask Proclus to give them a letter so
that they and those who sent them might be assured whether the
Cilician bishops or Rabboula and Acacius had the right teaching.
This shows that the letter was not written by “the bishops and
priests of Armenia Major”, but by the two priests.

Furthermore, there is another ground for suspecting the vali-
dity of the origin of this letter. We have already noted that in the
Greek text of Proclus’ Tome there was no mention at all of Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, whereas at the end of the Armenian text,
Theodore is denounced by name . 1 Again, in his answer to Proc-
clus, Sahak uses almost the same words as those used in the answer
to Acacius about the supposed heresy of Theodore having found
place among the Armenians. He denies it once more.

Curious textual similarities and striking contradictions, indeed!
How are we to explain them?

First of all, we have no ground to suspect the authenticity of
the documents as such . 2 Therefore, we have to look into them in
order to find, if possible, the necessary explanation. If, as the letter
of the two Armenian priests suggests, “the bishops and priests of
Armenia Major” sent a delegation, with a letter and a volume
containing extracts from Theodore’s writings, to Proclus, and,
secondly, if Proclus as he himself says, wrote the Tome “being
impelled by the letter 3 you sent to us” (eV raw vperepu >v irpor-
paircWe? XijifXXojv uiv -np 6 s rjpas SitTrepi/jacrde) how, then, could
Sahak and Mas toe, the heads of “the bishops and priests of
Armenia Major” say in their reply that there were no disciples of
Theodore in Armenia?

The answer to this question can be found through an inquiry
into the origin and nature of the two priests’ “mission”. That
Sahak and Mastoc were not involved, in any way, in the so-
called mission of these two priests, is clearly seen in their way of
answermg Proclus’ letter. If they had requested his advice and

1 See above, p. 124. 2 See Additional Note 10.

3 He refers to the famous letter of the two Armenian priests in which Theodore

is explicitly mentioned, the case of his writings and of his followers being the core
of the whole story.

140 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

solicited his intervention in a conflict in their own Church, how
could they be ignorant about it? Therefore, it is reasonable to
think that the priests acted independently, without having ob-
tained the consent — let alone the commission — of St Sahak and
St Mastoc.

They must have acted as representatives of an anti-Thcodorean
group in Armenia and presumably on instructions given by
Acacius himself. We know already from Koriwn and Xorenaci
that one of the priests, Leontius, “a faithful and truth-loving
man”, was the chief of the disciples who were entrusted to the
care of Acacius by Mastoc on his journey to Constantinople. '
Therefore he had been in an immediate and most intimate re-
lationship with Acacius by having him as his guide in his studies.
Naturally, he would have been deeply influenced by Acacius’
christological position and would have become a supporter of it
in such a time of controversy as this.

Furthermore, Koriwn tells us that Leontius and he himself
went to Constantinople where they joined the other Armenian
students, Eznik among them, and alter completing their studies
returned to Armenia with him, bringing with them the canons of
Ephesus and an accurate copy of the Greek Bible — the Septua-
gint. 2. Can we see in this journey the so-called and self-appointed
mission of the two Armenian priests?

Adontz has no doubt about it. Leontium is Lewond and Aber-
ium 3 is Koriwn. if Koriwn had such a direct connection with the
mission aimed at the condemnation of Theodore, he would have
spoken differently about the introduction and translation of
Theodore’s writings. But we saw how vague is his information.
But, more important than that, if Proclus’ Tome was written in
435 then this mission could not have coincided with the journey
of Leontius and Koriwn, because Eznik returned to Armenia

1 See above, p. 102 ff. z See Koriwn, pp. 74-6.

3 Adontz had not seen Innocentius’ text, where this name is put as “ Abelium”.
He used Liberatus’ text in which Abelium had become Aberium. This change of l
into r is the basis of his argument in identifying Aberium with Koriwn. Of course,
with Innocentius’ text, which is the source of Liberatus, that argument is auto-
matically ruled out.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON I4I

earlier than 435 (probably in 432-3). And Koriwn himself tells
us that they — himself and Leontius — returned with Eznik.

We think, therefore, with Fr Inglizean, 1 that this mission was a
self-appointed one, carried on without the knowledge of St
Sahak and St Mastoc. Leontius must have gone a second time to
Constantinople. We suppose that on his return from his first
journey he realized that the pro-Theodorean group in Armenia
was expanding its propaganda. So, with Acacius’ advice he must
have gone a second time to Constantinople to ask for the inter-
vention of the bishop of the imperial city. Surely, such an inter-
vention would have a great impact on the leaders of the Armenian
Church. In this time of frequent cultural contacts, Leontius’ second
journey to Constantinople could be very natural and easy. This
time he was accompanied by Abelium (—Abel or Habel), most
probably another disciple of St Mastoc. 2

However, there is one objection to this hypothesis, which is
otherwise well supported by the historical evidence. Why did
Leontius not apply to his immediate superiors and teachers,
Catholicos Sahak and Vardapct Mastoc? Is it possible at all to
think that with his deep affection towards them he would dis-
regard them? Was not his action rather some kind of under-
ground activity?

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Sahak and Mastoc were not
contacted by him or by the group of anti-Theodoreans. But when
we read once more Sahak’s answer to Acacius about Theodore’s
heresy having found a place in Armenia, we can understand what
would have been his reaction to Leontius’ or the anti-Theodo-
rcans’ request for immediate action against Theodore’s followers.
We think that even in their advanced age Sahak and Mastoc could
not but be aware of the sympathy that some people in Armenia
had for Theodore. Mastoc’s relationship with the great theologian
is indeed most important in this context. But being the leaders of
the Church — more responsible and far-seeing churchmen than a

1 Three Chapters, pp. 9-10.

2 For the identification of these two persons, see Inglizean, Three Chapters, pp.
3 8-44. His proposition remains in the sphere of sheer probability.

142 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Leontius or an Abelium — they surely would be reluctant to take
drastic measures against Theodore for two obvious reasons: (a)
Theodore was not yet condemned in the Church as a whole. On
the contrary until then he had enjoyed a very high reputation.
It was not so easy to declare him now a heretic. ( b ) More important
still, most probably Theodore was being favoured in Armenia by
those people who sympathized with Persia politically and with
Syriac-type Christianity theologically and culturally. To con-
demn such a person officially and openly would serve the oppo-
nents of Sahak — who were, indeed, very active and successful at
that time — as undeniable evidence of his attachment to the By-
zantine Church, and, at the same time, of his antagonism to the
Ncstorianizing Church favoured by the Persian Government.
Here we have to remember how sensitive Sahak’s position was on
this point. He had already suffered for his relationship with By-
zantium and had been warned officially to remain faithful to the
Persian religious policy, whereas Leontius and his colleagues,
mostly influenced by Acacius and Rabboula and educated in
Constantinople, were keener on theological issues and more en-
thusiastic in their likes and dislikes than Sahak and Mastoc.
Moreover, the constant contacts with Melitene could have kept
them alive and firm in their doctrinal allegiance. Those contacts
would have impelled them to establish their doctrinal position in
Armenia and make it the official position of the Armenian Church.
The Council of Ephesus was already accepted by the Church.
They had to confirm and protect it against Nestorianism.

This zeal of theirs explains sufficiently why they went as far as
to embark upon the “mission” already referred to, and to try to
bring in the intervention of Proclus in order to consolidate the
Ephesian tradition by rallying Sahak and Mastoc to their side in
an active participation in the anti-Theodorean movement. We
do not think that this was a purely private or personal enterprise.
Leontius and Abelium, in fact, were representing an important
and influential section of the Armenian clergy. This must have
given them the courage and the necessary support for such a
daring enterprise in which Acacius’ part is so transparent.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND'. EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 143

Thus, having shown the origin and the nature of this “mis-
sion”, the textual alterations in Proclus’ Tome can easily be ex-
plained. First, the title of this letter in its present text, “Letter of
Bishop Proclus to St Sahak, Catholicos of the Armenians and to
St Mastoc”, indicates that the letter is directly addressed to Sahak
and Mastoc, whereas both in the Greek text and in the Latin
translation this address is lacking and we have instead the follow-
ing opening words: Tots deotfnXeo-rdTots /cat Oeoacpeordrot s

ctuoko—ois /cat TrpeofivTepois /cat apyiptaySpirats rots' overt kcitix
7 Taoav Trjv ' Appt eviav rrjs op0o8o£ov ay tecs e’/c/cAyata? FFpoxXos iv
Kvpuot yalpeiv. This is literally reproduced in a fifth-century
Latin translation: “Dei amantissimis et venerabilibus episcopis et
presbyteris, et archimandritis orthodoxae sanctae per totam
Armenian! Ecclesiae Proclus in Dominc salutem.”

There can be no doubt that this was the original title of the
letter. In fact, it corresponds exactly to the beginning of the letter
Proclus was presented with by the two Armenian priests. The
words TIpoxXov apyteTTLCTKOTrov irpos 'Appeviovs, irepl rrtcrrecos, or
“Procli Constantinopolitani ad Armenios dc Fide Epistola”,
which appear in the heading of the letter, are later additions by
the compilers of the Patristic texts . 1

Unfortunately, the first two sections of Proclus’ letter have
been lost in the Armenian text. So we cannot say whether the
original long title was included there or was omitted. But most
probably they would have been replaced by the address that now
appears in the Armenian text and which has been translated
above. The basic reason for this supposition is that the answer to
Proclus’ letter was written by Sahak and Mastoc. This means that
they had been the recipients of the letter.

As Inglizean rightly contends, there must have been some good
reason for this change. He argues against Vardanean’s view that
some feeling of national pride — i.e. by representing Proclus as
writing to the leaders of the Armenian Church in person — must
have caused this change . 2 He maintains instead that Leontius

1 See Vardanean, Proclus, col. 7.

2 See ibid., col. 6-8.

144 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

himself, who translated the letter into Armenian, made this
alteration thinking thereby to influence Sahak and Mastoc by
presenting the letter as addressed to them personally . 1

A second change reveals more explicitly the nature of this
“mission” and casts further light on the theological conflict in
Armenia. Thus, where Proclus says very clearly that he was im-
pelled by the letter of the Armenians to write this letter, in the
Armenian text we are told that Proclus wrote it because he
“heard” or “became aware of” the writings of Theodore and
their harm to the people in Armenia. Why is there such a change
in the Armenian text? As Inglizean suggests, Leontius must have
introduced this change to conceal the fact that he and his colleague
had presented to Proclus a letter which was supposed to be written
by “the bishops and priests of Armaria Major”. Sahak would be
surprised, of course, if he realized that people in Armenia acted
in the name of the Armenian hierarchy without his knowledge
and consent. Therefore Leontius thought to avoid giving Sahak
an impression which might affect negatively his reaction to the
purpose of the whole mission.

Thirdly, the most important change is the introduction of
Theodore’s name into the Armenian text. Whereas in the Greek
text Theodore is not mentioned at all — and this is perfectly con-
sistent with Proclus’ general policy — in the Armenian text we
have him condemned by Proclus. The language used against
Theodore is even sharper than Acacius’ expressions in his first
letter. What is the explanation of this third change ? Simply be-
cause without it the whole mission — to fight Nestorianism
through the condemnation of Theodore’s writings — would have
failed, and Proclus’ letter would not have served the purpose that
Leontius and his colleagues had in mind when acquiring it.

There remains, however, one more problem to be dealt with :
how were these alterations made ?

Inglizean has a straightforward answer: they were made by the
two priests themselves, namely by Leontius, who had translated
this letter and the other documents, i.c. Acacius’ letters as well.

1 See Inglizean, Three Chapters, pp. 3 1-3.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON I45

His argument is based on a remark made by Gat‘rcean that the
language and the style of these documents are of the same
calibre . 1

But this answer cannot be accepted for very obvious reasons. For,
if the purpose of Leontius’ mission was to win Sahak’s support
for the anti-Theodorean campaign, then it would be unreason-
able to think that he would not have presented the Greek text of
Proclus’ letter to Sahak and Mastoc. We cannot imagine Leontius
handing to Sahak and Mastoc a letter from Proclus in Armenian!
In fact, Sahak and Mastoc were competent hellenists and there
is no reason to suppose any necessity for an Armenian translation.
On the contrary, that would open a door to suspicion in
Sahak’s mind as to the sincerity of Leontius’ presentation
of the letter. Therefore it is more reasonable to think that
the changes had already been made in the Greek text that was
presented to Sahak and Mastoc, a letter which was later translated
into Armenian to be kept in the archives of the Catholicosate.

Who would have dared to make these alterations in Proclus’
letter? We can make two alternative suggestions.

(a) The alterations were made in Constantinople itself, most
probably by the deacon Basil who played an important part in
the story of Proclus’ Tome. Innocentius’ narrative leaves no
doubt that Basil played a prominent role in the condemnation of
Theodore . 2 His journey to Alexandria, his relation with Cyril and
then his return to Constantinople and his zeal for the condem-
nation of Theodore — all these episodes make us think that he
might have been responsible for the alterations, or at least the
addition of the passage in which Theodore is explicitly con-
demned. The last paragraph of Innocentius’ account quoted above
is very significant. It suggests that something was added to Proc-
lus’ letter, either by himself personally or with his consent. The
second letter, to which refer the words: “Puto namque quia
secundam post haec edidit paginam”, could have been the one
sent to the Armenians. Indeed, in the second letter Theodore’s

1 Seeibid., pp. 38-41.

1 See above, pp. 130-1.

146 COUNCIL OP CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

writings were denounced. That was the direct answer to the re-
quest of the Armenians.

(b) On the other hand, it is not unthinkable that Acacius might
have intervened here again. Leontius on his way back to Armenia
passed very naturally through Melitene where he had studied and
where his former teacher Acacius knew all about the troubles in
the Armenian Church, and with all probability about Leontius’
mission itself. Thus we are tempted to think that he might have
made the alterations in order to makeProclus’ letter effective for the
anti-Theodorean campaign, which had been carried on under his
personal leadership. This can be deduced from some expressions in
the section added to Proclus’ letter concerning Theodore’s heresy.
A simple comparison will reveal the similarities between Acacius’
first letter and this added passage. Here again, the intensified tone
in denouncing Theodore is easily understood by supposing that
in the interval between Acacius’ first letter and Proclus’ answer
Theodorean propaganda had been strengthened in Armenia. In
other words, it reflects a further stage in the growing tension be-
tween the two factions in the Armenian Church.

Before closing our observations on this complicated and con-
fused situation, which wc tried to elucidate by the available data
of the historical evidence, there is one thing which may be put
forward as an objection to our attempt at reconstructing that situ-
ation in this manner. It can be stated in the following way: given
the supreme authority and the highest prestige that both Sahak
and Mastoc enjoyed amongst their own people, and, secondly,
taking into account the deepest love and respect that their dis-
ciples constantly showed towards them, it does seem to us, at
first sight, that the way in which these two Armenian priests
tackled the problem of the doctrinal controversy in their own
country showed a disloyal and unfaithful attitude towards their
teachers. It is somehow incompatible with the general atmosphere
of deep affection, constant obedience, and enthusiastic collabor-
ation.

But looking deeper, we can say that these disciples did not re-
gard their task or mission as something contrary' to the basic con-

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 147

victions and wishes of their masters. These basic convictions were
clearly expressed in their attitude to the Council of Ephesus which
they accepted without the least hesitation. But, as we have already
explained, their hesitancy about entering into action against Theo-
dore at such an early stage in the controversy was an act of well-
balanced wisdom. And this in two respects: first, they could not
denounce Theodore while the Church as a whole had not yet de-
nounced him. Secondly, they were very sensitive about a pos-
sible interpretation of their action against Theodore — if they took
that step — as being directed against the Church which was being
favoured by the Persians, their political masters. On the other
hand, their disciples having seen the christological controversy in
its place of origin — Constantinople — and having been taught by
people like Acacius, were more zealous concerning the doctrinal
problems than their white-haired teachers.

Now, with Proclus’ intervention the fourth phase of the doc-
trinal situation in the Armenian Church was closed. Wc do not
know precisely what consequences it had. 1 But it seems that with
the acceptance of the Council of Ephesus and with all the anti-
Nestorian or anti-Theodorean campaign the Ephesian tradition
became firmly established. It became the foundation-stone of Ar-
menian orthodoxy, irremovable at any price and by any means,
throughout the later years of bitter controversy over the Council
of Chalcedon.

This, however, did not mean that everything was settled and the
doctrinal situation in Armenia became one of a monolithic shape
or of peaceful state. The Council of Chalcedon was another in-
stance to arouse the storm. The two main traditions in Armenian
Christianity still had to fight each other. What happened, then,
after the Council of Chalcedon and before its rejection by the
Armenian Church? To this question we now turn.

1 Only Koriwn gives us a hint by saying that on the receipt of Proclus’ letter,
Sahak and Mastoc discarded the writings of Theodore. (See above, pp. 128-9.)

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (4)
The Ecclesiastical Situation
After the Council of Chalcedon

Soon after the controversy over the writings of Theodore, and on
the apparent settlement of the doctrinal disputes with the victory
of the anti-Theodorean group, the two great figures of the fifth
century, St Sahak and St Mastoc, passed away with an interval of
only six months. (Sahak died on 7 September 439 and Mastoc on
17 February 440.) 1

Their successor now was one of their disciples, Yovsep*
(Joseph) who maintained unchanged the wisely devised and tact-
fully applied policy of his teachers, in the meantime firmly estab-
lishing the Ephesian orthodoxy and furthering the evangelistic
and cultural activities of the Church.

The only important event in the ecclesiastical scene which is
worthy of special reference in this context is the Council of
Sahapivan 2 which was held for the purpose of removing all the
pagan survivals still persisting in the life of the people. It was a
council which dealt, predominantly on moral grounds, with the
reformation of the Church, which had not yet been cleared of the
ancient pagan customs and traditions. In the canons there are
some references to the Messalian sect. 3 The nineteenth canon is

1 See Dulaurier, Chronologic, pp. 135-6, n. 40; cf Manandean, Critical History,
p. 260.

2 See Melik‘t‘angean, Canon Law, pp. 319-41; Akinean, Sahapivan; Ormanean,
Azgapatum, col. 329-33.

3 The Armenian word for this sect is M’c’lneut'iwn (= Messalianism), M’c’lneayk'
(= Messalians). For its identification with Messalianism and for a study of its gen-

148

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON 149

expressly directed against this heresy, which is described as a
sect of very bad moral reputation. Otherwise, there are no doc-
trinal problems involved in this Council.

The Council of Sahapivan itself can be taken as a sign of a re-
laxed doctrinal situation in the Church. That comparatively
peaceful time provided the leaders with the opportunity of dealing
with internal affairs and of deepening the Christianization of their
people.

Lazar P‘arpeci seems to reflect that state of peace when he closes
the first book of his History. Thus, after relating the deaths of St
Sahak and St Mastoc, he says: “And by the intercession of the
departed, Armenia was granted [freedom] of the true religion
until the twelfth year of Yazdgard, the King of the Persians and
the son ofVram.” 1

That peace could not be maintained for very long. It had to
follow the “Law” of Armenian history! The Persian King, Yazd-
gard II, realized that the free intercourse between Armenia and
Byzantium was becoming perilous from the point of view of
Persian politics. Armenia was drawing nearer to Byzantium in
spite of the fact that it had been under Persian rule for half a
century after the partition. Armenia’s position in the political
conflict between Persia and Byzantium was of the highest
significance. Therefore drastic measures had to be taken.

The persecution started in 451, being well planned and care-
fully prepared between 449 and 450. The whole nation was en-
gaged in the movement of resistance in the largest sense of the
word, resistance which had a supreme significance as it was
directly connected with the very existence of the Armenian
people as such. After the battle of Avarayr (451) came years of in-
termittent attempts at dechristianization in various provinces of
Armenia carried on in diverse ways by the Persians. With these
attempts grew and spread also the reaction on the part of the

eral characteristics see Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Paulikianer, pp. 42-5 (Armenian ed., pp.
61-76); Conybeare, Key of Truth, pp. 107-9; Akinean, Sahapivan, pp. 57-60;
Melik'-Basxean, Paulician Movement, pp. 64-79; Toumebize, Armenie, col. 301-2.

1 P'arpep, bk. i, ch. 19.

150 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Armenians. Not until 485 did there come a real settlement of the
situation, when Vahan Mamikonean was recognized as Marzban
of Armenia and complete freedom of worship was gained. 1
Vahan’s rule (485-505) was a period of national recovery and re-
organization. It was during this period that the Armenian Church
authorities came to consider the Chalcedonian problem and to
define their attitude towards it, which, in the end, resulted in the
official rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.

Therefore, as we come nearer to the decisive moment, let us
look into the situation more closely.

There has always been a general tendency, in circles of eccles-
iastical scholarship, to think that the Armenians had been unaware
and remained ignorant of the Chalcedon controversy for many
years after the Council of Chalcedon. As Ormanean once wrote:
“[The Chalcedonian] problem did not exist for the Armenians
until the time of Catholicos Babgen” 2 (490-5x6). Or, as Inglizean
assumes as recently as in 1953 : “Der schwere Kampf utn Chalke-
don und um das damit zusammenhangende Henotikon des Kaisers
Zcnon (482) scheint bis zum Beginn des 6. Jahrhunderts in
Armenien keinen Widerhall gefunden zu haben.” 3

It is again generally assumed that during the catholicate of
Babgen, and somehow accidentally and indirectly — at the
request and on the instigation of Syrian Monophysites — the
Armenians took their decision against the Council of Chalcedon
in — or even after — the synod held at Valarsapat in 506. 4 The
accuracy of this presentation of the Armenian Church’s position
has already been strongly challenged. 5

At first, it would be difficult for anyone who is well acquainted
with the post-Chalcedonian history, and, at the same time, with
the history of the Nestorian expansion in the Persian Church, to
imagine that Armenia could remain untouched by these stormy

1 See a brief account of these events above, pp. 69-71.

2 Azgapatum, col. 491. 3 Arm. Kirche., p. 366. 4 See ibid., pp. 363-6.

5 See Ter-Minaseanc, Nestorianisin, pp. 191-210; Malxaseanf, Xorenafi-

Introduction, pp. 14-28; Idem, Xorenafi-Riddle , pp. 133-44; Abelean, Literature,
PP- 374-80, also Appendix vii, pp. 658-73; but particularly Ter-Mkrtc'ean,
Mandakuni, pp. 89-94; Idem, 11 Seal of Faith" -Introduction, pp. lvii-lxvii.

historical background: after chalcedon 151

quarrels which so deeply troubled the Church in the Byzantine
and Persian Empires. Armenia was situated right in the middle
of the two rival powers and there was no “iron curtain” on
either side and no Great Wall of China around it! The pre-
Chalcedonian history has shown clearly that Armenia was not
virgin soil as far as the christological controversy was concerned.
Therefore there arc good reasons to think that the later phases of
these controversies — i.e. the Chalcedonian disputes — would echo
there very naturally and, indeed, very easily. The roads were
opened by the controversy over Theodore’s writings. If the
troubled times of Armenia prevented the responsible leaders of
the Church from taking part in the disputes, surely they could
provide opportunities for the disputing sides to propagate their
teaching. The argument that the Armenians could not deal with
doctrinal problems because of political disturbances in their country
is not a very strong one.

That these controversies actually did echo in Armenia is what
must be shown now. In other words, the general statement that we
have just made in hypothetical terms, however strong in itself, has
to be substantiated by the factual data of the historical evidence.

Soon after the crisis of 451 when Catholicos Yovsep‘, St Sahak’s
successor, died (454), the Patriarchial See was occupied successively
by two Catholicoi who apparently came from the Syriac-type
section of Armenian Christianity. They were Melite Manaz-
kertaci and Movses Manazkertaci. 1 We do not know any tiling
about their work. Only their names have survived, and yet they
covered a period of ten years (Melite: 452-6; Movses: 456-61).
Why this silence over their Catholicates ? Of course, the first
answer can be found in the supposition that the Armenian his-
torians were much more concerned with the history of the nation-
wide movement of resistance and the martyrdom of the exiled
ecclesiastical and political heads of the Armenian people, than
with the works of these two Catholicoi. Secondly, it can be said
that in such times of desolation and unrest, hardly any significant
work could have been done.

1 See P'arpefi, bk. ii, ch. 62.

152 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

But, besides these two answers, perfectly reasonable and legit-
imate in themselves, there are some other factors which must be
taken into account. Thus, as Ter-Minaseanc has already guessed, 1
the feudal family — Manazkertacik ‘— to which belong these two
Catholicoi, was to some extent a rival family to St Gregory’s
in the fourth century. St Gregory’s family was associated or iden-
tified with the Greek type of Christianity ; these two Catholicoi
could have been representatives of the Syriac type. In fact, their
promotion to the Catholicosal See was an act in perfect accord
with the religious policy of the Persian Government just in the
aftermath of their attempt at abolishing Armenian autonomy on
political, religious, and cultural grounds. We must note also that
the province of Manazkert or Manawazakert is situated in the
southern regions of Armenia where the Syriac tradition was most
influential.

Furthermore, this supposition is confirmed by the way in
which P'arpeci mentions the names of these two Catholicoi. He
says:

After the death of the holy Catholicos Yovsep', the lord Melite, who
was of the family of Manazkertacik', succeeded him in the Cath-
olicosate of Armenia ; after him [came] the lord Movses, and he also
was of the same family. And then, according to the providence of God,
the lord Giwt succeeded in the Catholicosate of Armenia; a man
abounding in the knowledge of Armenian and excelling [in the
knowledge] of Greek. 2

Then he goes on to praise Giwt’s talents and relates his deeds at
length. 3 Giwt (461-78), as we shall see, was a representative of the
Hellenophile section, as P’arpeci himself was. This characteristic
way in which P'arpeci records the succession of the Catholicoi
makes it clear that he had no sympathy with the two predecessors
of Giwt, most probably on account of their ecclesiastical orien-
tation. Thus, whereas in P'arpeci’s record they simply succeed

1 See Arm. Kirche, pp. 28-9 (Armenian edition, pp. 60-2).

2 P'arpeci, bk. ii, ch. 62.

3 See P'arpeci, bk. ii, chs. 63, 64.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON IJ3

each other, Giwt, on the contrary, is appointed “by the provi-
dence of God ’’. 1 Is this an indication that Melite and Movses were
nominated by the Persian Government? We do not know exactly ;
but there is good ground to believe so.

The struggle between the two traditions in Armenian Christi-
anity and especially the attitude of the Persian Government is
more clearly seen in the following episode. Giwt had been ac-
cused before King Peroz for his disloyalty to the Persian Govern-
ment and for his relations with the Eyzantine emperor. The
accuser, Gadisoy, was a leader in the Iranophile faction which had
got the upper hand in Armenian affairs after the battle of Avarayr.
Giwt was summoned to the Persian Court. Peroz did not deem
it worthy and honourable to judge him personally, so he sent mes-
sengers and put before him the accusations. Giwt answered by
saying that the charges which were made against him were not all
lies. There were things justly said and things which were put
wrongly. Thus, that he loved Christianity and the Christians was
true ; heaven hated those who had gone astray from the truth. But
that he was disloyal to the Persian King was wrong.

As regards my relations (lit. “goings and comings”) with Byzan-
tium, the things were not as he (i.e. the accuser) thinks and tells, for
he is a liar; [I do that] because I was educated and made my studies in
Byzantium, and [because] I have many acquaintances and fellow-
students there. Moreover, the kind of vestments [we use] we buy
from there, because they are not found anywhere else; so we are
bound to buy it from there when we need it. But [as regards] the
obedience of citizenship, even our law (i.e. the Christian teaching)
prescribes that we should render it to the proper and worthy mas-
ters . 2

When Giwt’s answers were taken to the King, he recognized
in him an intelligent man. So he sent his messengers back and
put before him the following alternative proposal; He would

1 He later says that Giwt was not appointed by the Persian King. He was soon
deposed by the latter, as we shall see a little further on.

2 P‘arpe(i, bk. ii, ch. 64.

154 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

recognize him as Catholicos 1 and give him all honours if he
accepted the Mazdaean faith and worshipped the sun ; if not, then
he would take away from him his Catholicosal office and also his
episcopal dignity. Giwt chose the second, but added that his
episcopacy could not be taken away from him by any man, not
even by death, and that martyrdom was closer to his heart than
the denial of Christ’s true faith. Peroz, on hearing Giwt’s answer,
deprived him of his Catholicosal function, but at the same time
afflicted him by not giving him the happy chance of martyrdom,
because, he said, these Christians honour their dead more than their
living . 2 The episode in itself is quite eloquent and needs no fur-
ther comment. It reflects the general atmosphere and bears direct
witness to the attitude of the Persian Government.

That in Armenia this tension between the two traditions had
become more strained in the second half of the fifth century in gen-
eral and in the third quarter, in particular, is still more clearly seen
in two documents of the fifth century: (a) the letter of P’arpeci
to Vahan Mamikonean 3 and (b) the last chapter of Xorenaci’s
History: “Lamentations on the removal of the Armenian King-
dom from the House of the Arsacids and the end of the Catholi-
cosate (lit. “arch-episcopate”) of the House of St Gregory ”. 4
In these two documents we have allusions to conflicts, persecu-
tion, heterodoxy, etc. What do they mean ? Let us first examine
them.

P’arpeci, who had studied in the “country of the Greeks”

1 He said : “ Until now your authority was held without my order, and it was
the vassals (=the Armenian naxarars) who gave you that great office, and you
have no confidence whatsoever from me.”

2 The whole story is related by P'arpcfi in a most attractive way. The dramatic
setting of the episode makes the reading most enjoyable indeed. See bk. ii, ch. 64.

3 This letter which was sent to Vahan Marmikonean, was written in Amid,
where Lazar P‘arpeei had taken refuge while he was being persecuted in Armenia
by his opponents. In it he exposes to the Armenian marzhan , a former classmate of
his, the fallacy of the accusations brought against him. In fact, it is a plea of self-
defence. Usually it is published at the end of P'arpcci’s History. M. Emin made a
separate edition in Moscow, 1853. But the text as published in the critical edition
of P’arpefi’s History is more accurate. I have used this latter. (See Bibliography.)

4 See bk. iii, ch, 68.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON 1 55

(Byzantium ), 1 had met strong opposition in Armenia, where
people whom he calls “Armenian Abeghas ” 2 had been bringing
many charges against him. Most of the accusations were of a moral
nature in the wider sense of this term. At least one of them, how-
ever, had a doctrinal significance. His enemies charged him with
“heresy”. But P‘arpeci declines to name the heresy, because it
was, as he says, such an abominable one that he did not deem
it decent to write it down . 3 It is difficult, therefore, to identify it.
The identification becomes more difficult when wc are told by
P‘arpeci that “. . . concerning the heresy of Armenia, of which
they speak, it is anonymous as regards its teacher, and unwritten
as regards its teaching ”. 4 He gives us the impression that they
accuse him of a heresy without specifying their charge. Therefore,
under these conditions, it would be sheer conjecture on our part
if we attempted to identify it in precise terms and with specific
names. We do not wish to embark on that line of conjecture.

However, we note a very significant passage in this letter in
which P‘arpeci’s doctrinal position is seen quite clearly. Thus,
after saying that he had been charged with heresy, he immediately
goes on to justify himself in a long passage in which his self-
defence is made on the following two grounds :

(<i) “I have studied Greek literature extensively; I have read
the writings of the Holy Fathers, who, inspired by the Holy
Spirit, turned back the swords of the heretics into their own hearts
and broke in pieces their bows, and taught us the saving doctrine.
Therefore, those who have read their writings with deep affec-
tion can be safe from the arrows of the evil archers.” He names the
following Fathers : Athanasius of Alexandria, the two Fathers of
the same name, Cyril of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil
of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus who was called “the Theo-
logian”, and the “Apostle-like” martyr St Gregory the teacher

1 ‘‘In accordance with the order of my teachers I was taken to Byzantium,
where I dwelt [some] years" (P‘arpeci, p. 187; cf p. 193).

2 A Syriac term — awita — for monk. (See Ter-Minasean?, Arm. Kirche, p. 32 ;
cf Malxaseanf, Dictionary, vol. i, p. 2.)

3 See P'arpe^i, p. 192.

4 P‘arpefi, p. 193.

156 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

of Armenia, and all those who, like them, followed the same path
of so and doctrine;

( b ) In the succeeding section of the same passage 1 P'arpeci men-
tions the names of heretics whom the Church had anathema-
tized and whom, therefore, he rejects. They are: Arms of Alex-
andria, Apoliinarius of Laodicea, Nestorius of Antioch, Eutyches
of Constantinople and “Kowmbrikos” (= Cubricus) the slave,
who later changed his name into Mani and those who followed
his teaching and were called after him Manichaeans . 2

It is very important to note here that P'arpeci has not men-
tioned any Antiochene theologian in the list of the orthodox
“holy Fathers”. On the contrary, he seems to be a representative
of that School of Armenian theologians who, after the Council of
Ephesus, took the line of Alexandrian christology, and, at the
same time, continued to hold firm to the traditional link of the
Armenian Church with the Cappadocian Fathers.

As we cannot tell precisely what the heresy ascribed to him
was, and if, secondly, we put aside the moral charges brought
against this heresy 3 — a common feature in the refutation of her-
esies — then we are not perhaps very far from the truth if we say
that the heresy which might have been opposed by Nestorianizing
Syrophiles — as the opponents of P'arpeci were — was the anti-
Chalcedonian and staunchly Cyrilline christology. This, in the
mind of those people, was the greatest error, namely that, again
in their view, it confused the two natures of Christ.

1 Unfortunately there is a gap here in the text. The missing part seems to have
been an important one for doctrinal reasons. It would certainly have explained
the connection between these two points more straightforwardly and more
clearly than it does now in the present mutilated state of the text,

1 See P‘arpepi, p. 192.

3 It could be that P'arpepi’s enemies charged him with Messalian heresy. They
found in Messalianism a pretext to oppose him. Indeed, this heresy had a very
bad reputation in Armenia. This seems to be the case especially when we take into
account some other passages in the letter (namely p. 193). However, P'arpeqi
knew well that what they actually aimed at in their opposition was not his “Mes-
salianism” or the heresy which he declined to name, but his doctrinal attitude.
Otherwise he would not take the trouble of putting forward the names of the
Fathers and heretics we just mentioned. In fact, he brought them to justify him-
self.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHAICEDON 157

This interpretation seems to receive some further support from
the fact that the opposition was not directed against P'arpeci
alone, but also against other people who belonged to the same
school of theology. The accusations against P'arpeci were not
purely personal but reflected ideological — doctrinal — features of a
controversy in which two distinct groups or factions, opposed to
each other, were involved. In this letter of self-justification or
self-defence there are three persons mentioned by P'arpeci who
were persecuted even more fiercely than he, and all three were
representatives of the Greek-type tradition and had gone to By-
zantium for advanced studies. Their names were Movses, Xos-
rovik and Abraham . 1 Again, the names of St Gregory, St Nerses,
and St Sahak — three champions of Greek-type Christianity — are
mentioned in this letter , 2 in which P'arpeci links this fifth-century
conflict with that of the fourth. This means that it had the same
common background. The persons and the issues were changed ;
but the conflict at the basis was the same.

Movses Xorenaci, in his famous “Lamentations” gives us
a similar picture of the ecclesiatical situation in Armenia. Accord-
ing to his own story, he and others had been sent by Sahak and
Mastoc to Alexandria . 3 When they returned to Armenia,
their teachers had passed away. So, in his History, after relat-
ing their deaths he composed his “Lamentations”, in which
the post-Chalcedonian doctrinal situation of the Armenian Church
is rather vaguely reflected. But we find some glimpses which
serve to confirm what we saw in P'arpeci’s letter to Vahan Mami-
konean.

First, he says that on the deaths of the two blessed men “the
peace was disturbed, chaos reigned (lit. ‘became rooted’), ortho-
doxy was shaken, and heterodoxy was established through ignor-
ance”. All these happened because the true shepherds (St Sahak)

1 See P'arpeci, pp. 202-3. Unfortunately there is a missing sheet in the manu-
script just at this point. There could have been other names also mentioned there,
and we could probably have some further evidence on the doctrinal nature of the

conflict.

1 Sec P'arpeci, p. 203.

3 See Xorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 61 .

158 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

and his assistant (St Mastoc) had passed away and there was no
Joshua to succeed Moses. Therefore, “now battles from within
and terrors from without; terrors from the heathen and battles
from the schismatics (i.e. heretics)’’. He deplores the fact that on
their return from Byzantium there was no one who would re-
joice in their achievements and could appreciate their academic
progress. Then he adds: “Who, then, will restrain the daring
of those who oppose the sound doctrine [and] who, being
divided [among themselves] and dismembered, change many
teachers and alter books, as one of the Fathers had said?” These
people mocked and despised Xorenaci and his fellow-students.
“Who then will shut their mouths?” he exclaims. Then,
invoking Jeremiah’s Lamentations he invites the prophet to
conre and lament over the miseries ot the Armenians. Finally,
he denounces all those who caused these miseries — vardapets (i.e.
Church divines), monks, bishops, disciples, lay people, princes,
judges, etc.

Now, what do all these allusions to “orthodoxy” and “hetero-
doxy”, to “battles of schismatics or heretics”, to “opponents of
sound doctrine” mean? First of all, we must say that it is more
than probable that the opponents here were the same people as
those who fought P'arpeci and his colleagues or friends. The
chronological proximity of the two cases — both of them in the
second half of the fifth century — on the one hand, and the
similarity of Xorenaci’ s and P’arpeci’s theological background —
both of them came from centres of theological traditions such as
Alexandria and Byzantium — on the other, leave no doubt about
it. 1

It is obvious that Xorenaci and his friends were victims of those
Syrophile elements who took advantage of the Persian persecu-
tion in Armenia to bring the Church of Armenia under the in-
fluence of the Persian Church, which was undergoing at that time

1 We must remember that P‘arpec;i mentions a “Movses” as one of those people
who were being persecuted with him. If we accept the identification of this
Movses with Xorenaci (See Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, "Seal of Faith ’’-Introduction, pp. lix-
lx) then our supposition becomes very convincing.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON 1 59

the process of Nestorianization, as we shall see in a moment.
Having studied in Alexandria and having passed through Byzan-
tium, Xorenaci could not have any other doctrinal position than
that of a staunch anti-Nestorian, and therefore, anti-Chalce-
donian. 1 For him “orthodoxy” was the Cyrilline christology and
“heterodoxy” nothing other than Nestorianism, which in his
own view and, indeed, in the view of many others of his time, had
been reaffirmed or reinforced at Chalcedon. Hence the immediate
association of Nestorianism with Chalcedon.

The situation as described in these two documents and as seen
through the episode of Giwt’s deposition by the Persian Govern-
ment is understood in a further light when we see it in connection
with the situation of the Church in the Persian empire.

Mgr Tisserant, speaking of the period between 424 and 484 of
the history of the Persian Church, rightly remarks : ‘ ‘ C’est pen-
dant ces soixante annees que se fixe 1 ’avenir de 1 ’Eglise de Perse,” 2
We know what that future came to be : an adherence to Nestorian
christology. How was this reached? The Nestorian sources are not
very helpful in answering this question straightforwardly, but
scholars have found some valuable information from Mono-
physite sources though they have used them very cautiously for
understandable reasons.

During this period and with a background of dyophysite Antio-
chene christology, the Persian Church became the host of the
Nestorian refugees who either fled from or were driven out of
the Byzantine Empire. Chalcedon had not troubled them at all.
On the contrary, they had good reasons to welcome it had there
not been the political barrier. In fact, their doctrinal teachers were
recognized by that Council as genuinely orthodox. There was
nothing new for them in Chalcedon, it reaffirmed what they had
always believed and followed. But soon the anti-Chalcedonian

1 It is a very naive belief to assume that Xorenaci was a Chalcedonian, as Malxa-
seanc has contended. (See Xorenaci-Introduction, pp. 14-28; Xorenafi-Riddle,
PP- 133-44.) His view cannot stand any critical approach. It has already been re-
futed successfully by Abelean, Literature, Appendix vi and vii, pp. 653-8, 658-73.

2 Tisserant, Neslorienne, col. 173.

l60 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

movement became a matter of concern for them and was deeply
resented. Incidentally, this is a very characteristic symptom of the
close association of Nestorianism and Chalcedonism. The man
who understood the danger and led the opposition was the famous
Barsuama already condemned in the second council of Ephesus
(449) - 1

Labourt, who has studied very carefully all the available evi-
dence on this period, especially the information about Barsuama’s
activities, shows that he and his supporters were alarmed by the
resurgence and expansion of Monophysitism under the reign of
Zeno (474-91). This meant to them the weakening of their Dyo-
physite position. The definition of faith officially drawn up and
approved in the council of 486 was a reassessment of their
doctrinal attitude and, at the same time, a repudiation of the
Monophysite position which, was understood by them, as theDefin-
ition itself shows, as teaching the mixture or confusion of the two
natures of Christ. 2 In 489, by the order of Emperor Zeno, the
“School of the Persians” in Edessa was purged of its Nestorian
teachers and students. They “prirent alors le chemin de la Perse
sans espoir de retour. A la premiere etape, Barsauma les arreta. 11
fonda a Nisibe une ecole qui devint rapidement celebre.” 3 Thus,
Barsauma and his followers started a real war against the Mono-
physites and drove them to the Byzantine provinces. They were
supported by Peroz. According to Monophysite writers they even
had recourse to bloodshed. 4

Now, it must be observed that the new stronghold of Nestor-
ianism — Nisibis — was very close to Armenia and the earlier

1 SeeBardy, Barsauma, col. 948-50.

* SeeChabot, Synodicon Orientate, p. 302; cfTisserant, Nestorienne, col. 177.

3 Labourt, Christianisme Perse, p. 141. See about all these events and his critical
analysis of them, pp. 131-41; cf Wigram, Assyrian Church, pp. 142-71, partic-
ularly pp. 153—5 ; Tisserant, Nestorienne, col. 173-8; Tisserant, Narsai, col. 27;
Duval, Histoire d’ Izdesse, p.216.

4 Labourt, whose approach to these sources is even over-critical, says: “II est
possible qu’il y ait eu quelque sang vers<L, mais il ne foudrait pas admettre les
chiffres fantaisistes de Barhebraeus” ( Christianisme Perse, p. 140). For Peroz’s
religious policy, see Duval, Histoire t i'£desse, p. 199.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON l6l

relations between the two had been more than friendly. 1 * 3 The
publication of Zeno’s Hetioticon (482), the councils of 484 and 486,
and the closure of the School of Edessa (489), followed by the
emigration of Nestorian theologians to the Persian empire, were
successive events with serious consequences for the Persian Church.
The situation in Armenia could not remain unaffected. In fact, we
have quite important historical evidence for an attempt intended
to win Armenia to the Nestorian side. The person mentioned in
connection with this attempt is none other than the same Bar-
sauma.

Thus, a tenth-century Armenian historiographer, Thomas
Arcruni relates the story of Barsauma’s coming to Armenia and
his failure in rallying the Armenian Church to the Nestorian-
ized Church of Persia. He says :

In the time of Peroz, King of Kings, there was a certain man of
the heresy of Nestorius by the name Barsauma, who was [only]
nominally a bishop, and who holding firm to the Nestorian heresy
and bringing forth before Peroz calumnies against the Armenian
naxarars committed many bloody crimes.

. . . [This Barsauma] came to Arznarziwn 2 and to the province of
Mokk‘ l in order to sow there the seeds of the Nestorian heresy.

. . . When Mersapuh, the prince of the Arcrunik 1 , heard this . . .
he sent him (Barsauma) [a message] to leave the frontiers of the

1 An example of this closeness is the story of St James of Nisibis who has always
been regarded and venerated as a most popular saint in the Armenian Church,
with many rich traditions about his life and work in Armenia. “C’est chez ces
demiers [i.e. the Armenians] qu’il a obtenu le plus de popularity ayant ete mis en
relations d’amitie avec saint Gregoire l’llluminateur” (Tisserant, Jacques, col. 293).
See an exhaustive study on the Armenian traditions concerning St James of
Nisibis in Peelers, Jacques, pp. 3 12-39, 342-73.

1 Arznarziwn is undoubtedly another, rather lengthy, form of Arzn or Arzan
which is situated in South Armenia. Definitely it is Arzn or Arzan that is meant
here. This can be seen very easily when we compare it with Michael Syrus’ pas-
sage which is quoted below and in which it is written as ArzSn. This province was
not far from Nisibis (see Map 1). See Chabot, Synodicon Orientate, pp. 272-6, etc.
See Index, p. 666. Honigmann writes it as “Arzanene”. See Eveques, pp. 129,
130; Voobus, Syrian Asceticism, pp. 295, 324.

3 Mokk', another southern province of Armenia situated eastwards to Arzan
(see Map i).

l 6 z COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

province; he did not touch him, but because of the Persian king 1
he only threatened him severely by sending him messages . 2

Thomas Arcruni surely takes this story from some oral tradi-
tion, as the title of the chapter suggests . 3 That tradition must have
been quite widespread and well known, because it is recorded
also in a Syrian source, the Chronicle of Michael Syrus. In relating
Barsauma’s works in Nisibis and Ctesiphon this famous Syrian
historian tells us that he (Barsauma) compelled Acacius, the
Catholicos of the Persian Church, to accept Nestorianism as the
official doctrine of the Church . 4 Having done this,

Bar-Qauma s’en alia sur la frontiere d’Armenie et arriva a Arzon.
Lcs Armeniens lui addresserent des menaces en disant: “Si tu ne
retournes pas, tu rendra compte, par nos mains, du sang des fideles.”
— Ce scelerat ecrivit au roi des Perses en disant: “Les Armeniens sont
revokes contre toi.” — Le roi fit connaitre la chose a ses conseillers
qui l’engagcrent a ne pas susciter une guerre civile et a ne pas diviser
son empire a cause des querelles des chretiens. Alors, il ecrivit au
prince d’Armenie de venir. Les Armeniens repondirent: “Si tu ne
dois pas changer nos lois, ni nous envoyer a la guerre contre un autre
peuple que les Turcs, avec notre croix marchant a notre tete, puisque
nous sommes chretiens, nous viendrons faire un pacte et des ser-
rnents; sinon, nous ne viendrons pas.” — Le roi, conseille par ses
grands, agit selon le desir des Armeniens, et fit revenir Bar-Qauma.
Et (ainsi) les Armeniens echapperent au nestorianisme . 5

1 The relation of Barsauma’s mission to the policy of the Persian Government is
dearly seen in this remark. Barsauma was being supported by Peroz. Therefore
to touch him would mean to be hostile to Peroz. When we remember that it was
the same Peroz who deposed Catholicos Giwt, the religious situation in Armenia
becomes still clearer.

2 Thomas Arcruni, History, pp. 88-9.

3 The anachronisms and the confusions of some historical facts which appear in
his record of the story as a whole have been studied by Tcr-Minaseanc. See Nes-
torianism, pp. 196-7; cf Idem, Arm. Kirche, pp. 37-8, 36-7 (Armenian edition, pp.
80-1, 132-4}.

4 See Michel Le Syrien, Chronique, vol. ii, pp. 437-9.

5 Chronique, vol. ii, p. 439. That in the days of Peroz there was a definite attempt
for the Nestorianization of the Armenian Church is supported also by the testi-
mony of a Georgian writer of the ninth century, Arsen Saparafi- In his treatise on
the separation of the Armenian and Georgian Churches he says that “King Peroz

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON 163

The differences seen in these two accounts of the same tradition
must not allow us to discredit the tradition as a whole. Such di-
vergences are common features in the formation and develop-
ment of oral traditions. The major basic fact is the same in both
Thomas Arcruni and Michael Syrus : Nestorianism became a ser-
ious menace for the Armenian Church in the second half of the
fifth century. It was openly and officially introduced into Ar-
menia with a definite policy of making it the official doctrine of
the Church in the last two decades of the century. The Armenians
rejected it deliberately and with an unyielding opposition.

Besides this attempt made by Barsauma, there seems to have
been another made on a smaller scale and on individual rather than
official initiative, some ten or twenty years before. We have a
valuable reference to it which removes all doubt of its authen-
ticity. In the days of Giwt (461-78) three “heretics” came to Ar-
menia and began to spread their false teachings. They were saying
that the Virgin Mary was not deoroKos and were refusing to
say for the Cross “God’s Cross”. Giwt wrote a letter to David the
Invincible — a famous Armenian Christian philosopher — asking
him to compose a treatise on the Cross and to refute the teach-
ings of these heretics. 1

I11 these two cases, which fortunately have found a place in the
historical records, we can see not merely individual, isolated in-
stances. Once having appreciated the ecclesiastical situation in
both the Persian and the Byzantine Empires, it is reasonable to
read in these two surviving cases a general tendency — expressed
surely in other ways and instances which have not been recorded
— which aimed at the total Nestorianization of Armenia. This
was a perfectly justifiable policy when seen through the eyes of the

compelled the Armenians to follow the teaching of the ungodly Nestorius; but
the Armenians categorically rejected this” (Melik* set'-Bek, Georgian Sources, vol. i,
P- 35 )-

* Giwt’s letter and David’s treatise are contained in the work published under
the name of David the Invincible in Venice, 1833 . Unfortunately, the book is not
at my disposal, so I give the instance as represented in Ormanean, Azgapatum,
col. 423-4; cf Tcr-Minascanf, Nestorianism, pp. 198-9.

164 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Persian Government on the one hand, and from the doctrinal
standpoint of the Persian Church on the other.

We know what was the reaction of the Armenian Church to
these attempts. The rejection was the natural consequence of
their acceptance of the Council of Ephesus and their fight against
the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. As Grousset, speaking of
the last quarter of the fifth century, puts it so straightforwardly,
“1’Eglisc armenienne etait toute entiere dressee contre le nesto-
rianisme”, 1

Here we face a very important problem: Why in this whole
story is the Council of Chalcedon not mentioned ? In fact, in all
the historical and theological literature of the fifth century, there
is not a single mention of the Council of Chalcedon by name. But
this question raises another one closely linked with it and prelimi-
nary to it : Does the absence of any specific mention correspond
necessarily to a state of ignorance about it? In other words, does
this silence mean that the Council of Chalcedon was unknown to
the Armenians until the first decade of the sixth century ? It is not
reasonable to think so.

The reasons for giving this straightforward answer can be
found in the following points :

i. We have two treatises, written sometime during the last two
decades of the fifth century which in fact are directed against the
Council of Chalcedon, although they do not mention it by name.
The first is John Mandakuni’s Demonstration, 2 and the second
Movses Xorenaci’s Treatise. 3 On the authenticity of these two
documents we shall speak in the next chapter when we come to
present the christology contained in them. Here we take it for
granted.

The doctrine refuted in these documents is undoubtedly the
doctrine formulated in the Council of Chalcedon. This becomes

1 Histoire d' Armenia, p. 235.

2 Of the blessed John, the Armenian Archbishop [Catholicos], Demonstration of why
to confess the Saviour “ Of Two Natures" or “ One Nature". (SeeB.L., pp. 29-40).

2 "[A treatise] of the blessed bishop Movses Xorenafi, the great Rhetor. ” (See B.L.,
pp.22-8).

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON 165

obvious when we read them carefully, as we shall try to do later,
again in the next chapter. The mere title of Mandakuni’s Dem-
onstration of why to confess the Saviour “Of Two Natures” or “One
Nature”, shows a direct connection with the terminology which
became the central issue in the Chalcedonian problem. But here
we are not concerned with the internal or textual evidence. We
give two reasons for the assertion that these documents were
written with a view to refuting the doctrine of the Council of
Chalcedon.

First, the Demonstration of John Mandakuni has always been re-
garded as directed against the Council of Chalcedon. Thus, in a
seventh-century compilation of Patristic fragments. The Seal of
Faith, the Demonstration is quoted extensively under the following
title which needs no comment: “Of John Mandakuni, the Ar-
menian Catholicos from the Refutation of the Council of Chalce-
don which is called Demonstration . 1

Secondly, in the treatise of Movses Xorenaci we have obvious
influences from the Armenian translation of Timothy Aelurus’
Refutation of the Definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. These in-
fluences are seen not only in textual similarities 2 between the two,
but also through the list of Church Fathers and those writings
which are mentioned in Xorenaci , 3 and which are found in Timo-
thy’s Refutation. The dependence of Xorenaci on the Armenian
translation of Timothy’s work can be seen very easily through a
comparison. To mention them in the order of Xorenaci’ s text,
these Fathers are : Basil the Great, John of Constantinople (Chrys-
ostom), Julius of Rome , 4 Cyril of Alexandria , 5 Erectheus,

1 See Seal of Faith, pp. 130-3. Here the extract from the Demonstration corres-
ponds exactly to the text as printed in the Book of Letters.

1 Such similarities can be seen also between the Refutation and Mandakuni's
Demonstration, as Ter-Mkrtc‘ean has already shown. (See Seal of Faith-Intro-
duction, pp. lix-lx.)

3 SeeB.L., p. 26.

4 See Refutation, pp. 8-9, 132, 156-7, 177-8, 186-7, 259-62; cf Cavallera,
Timothee, pp. 355-6.

5 See Refutation, pp. 161-2, 178-9, 62-3, 68; cf Cavallera, Timothte, pp.
348 - 51 -

1 66 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, 1 , Gregory of Neocaesarea, 2 Ephraim
Syrus, 3 and Gregory of Nazianzus. 4

2. Besides these two documents which by themselves provide
us with positive arguments, there is the translation of Timothy
Aelurus’ Refutation, the influence of winch we have just detected
in Xorenaci’s treatise. The date of this translation has been a
matter of controversy since the discovery of Timothy's work in
Armenian translation in 1907. There have been, as there still are,
two main positions in this controversy. To state them broadly,
the first holds that the translation was made in the middle of the
sixth century as the editors of the Armenian text firstfixed it. 5 The
argument for this dating is provided by external evidence : testi-
monies from later writings such as the letter of Photius to Zach-
arias, the Armenian Catholicos, 6 the anonymous treatise called
Jnjyrjais and commonly known as Narratio de rehus Armeniae , 7 the
treatise of Arsen, Catholicos of the Georgians (ninth century) on
the separation of the Armenian Church, 8 and an Armenian docu-
ment recently found and published by P. Ananean. 9 It is obvious

1 See Refutation, pp. 276-7; cfCavailera, Tirnothee, p. 352.

2 See Refutation, pp. 21, 92, 189; cfCavailera, Timothie.

3 It is surprising that there is no citation from Ephraim in the Refutation.

4 See Refutation, pp. 22-5, 142, 160, 193-4; cfCavailera, Tirnothee, pp. 353-4.

5 See Ter-Mkrtc‘ean and Ter-Minaseanp, Refutation, Preface, pp. xv-xvii. It
must be said that later Ter-Mkrtc'ean changed his view and adhered to the second
position. (See Sea! of Faith-Introduction, p. lix.)

6 See the passage in question, in Ter-Mkrtc‘ean and Ter-Minaseanp, Refutation,
preface, p. xvi, taken from Papadopulos-Kerameus; Fotija, pp. 179-95 . 1 have used
the passage as quoted in the Preface; cf Garitte, Narratio, pp. 133-4, which con-
tains the Armenian text with a French translation.

7 This is a brief historical treatise which speaks about the relationship of the
Armenian Church with the Byzantine. It relates the whole story from a strict
Chalcedonian point of view. The author tries to show that the Armenians had
always been united to the Byzantine Church but later, in the middle of the sixth
century, were separated. Afterwards they returned to union several times, but
always lapsed. (See Garitte, Narratio, pp. 26-47, the Greek text). Professor Garitte
who made the critical edition with a masterly historical commentary, places the
date of the writing about a.d. 700. (See ibid., pp. 382-400, particularly p. 398.)

6 See the Armenian translation in Melik‘set'-Bek, Georgian Sources, pp. 34-7;
cf Garitte, Narratio, pp. 130-3, where there is the Georgian text with a French
translation.

’ See Dowin Document, pp. 112-13.

historical background: after chalcedon 167

that all these documents have a common source. They are closely
interrelated.

Now, in these documents it is said— -indeed in varying forms
and imprecise expressions — that the works of Timothy Aelurus
and Philoxenos of Mabboug were translated into Armenian at
the Council of Dowin (552-4). The works were brought to the
Armenians by Syrian Monophysitcs who came from the neigh-
bouring southern provinces of Armenia to secure the support of
the Armenian Church for their position in a controversy against
the Nestorians.

On the other hand, Galust Ter-Mkrtc‘ean considering the in-
ternal chronological evidence provided by the Refutation itself 1
showed that the date of the translation falls somewhere be-
tween the years 480 and 484. 2 His arguments were so convincing
that those scholars who still could not accept an early translation
of Timothy’s work, proposed, too arbitrarily, various textual
alterations in the chronological data in order to fit it to their own
calculation. 3 It would be a very long digression for us to enter
into the details of this dispute, and as there arc no new or impor-
tant indications lor the clarification of this problem, the mere
presentation of the various views of the scholars will not serve our
immediate purpose in any way. 4 However, from what we have

1 Sec Refutation, p. 277.

2 Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Timothy, p. 572.

3 See Akinean, Timothy, pp. 31-2; Manandean, Hdlenizing School, col. 442
(H.A., 1926). Ananean, Dowin Document, pp. 127-8.

4 Fr P. Ananean has already gathered together all these views in his third article
on the document already referred to. (See Dowin Document, pp. 117-31.) He has
come to the conclusion that both sides are equally justified when seen only from
the positive data of their argumentation. But he says that in order to decide which
position is likely to be on the side of the truth one must see the translation in the
context of the ecclesiastical situation of the time. And as for him, the Armenian
Church could not have dealt with the Chalcedonian problem before the sixth
century, therefore the middle of that century is the proper context in which such
a translation could have been made. Moreover, he argues, the translation had to
be authorized by the Church leaders. Therefore the translation in a Council can
be accepted more easily and reasonably than a translation made on private initia-
tive and responsibility. As the Armenian Catholicoi were not opposed to the
Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, so they could not have authorized such

l68 COUNCIL OF chalcedon and the Armenian church

already said in this chapter an early translation of Timothy’s work
was possible. We can make only the following observations in
support of that possibility.

(a) One of the main arguments against the possibility of a trans-
lation towards the end of the fifth century has been based on the
general view of the origin of the “Hellenizing School” in Ar-
menian ancient literature. This School produced a period in Ar-
menian literature when the Armenian language became literally
dependent on the Greek. In other words, the Armenian translators
began to follow the Greek texts in a servile manner, by reproduc-
ing the Greek words in Armenian forms. It was a School which
opened also a new path in Armenian literature through transla-
tions from “profane” or secular literature, such as philosophy,
especially from Neo-Platonist writers and from Aristotle . 1

Until recently it was thought that the origins of the School
could not be traced to the fifth century, which was the “Golden
Age” of Armenian Literature and which had the purest lang-
uage tradition. But lately, this general view has been strongly
challenged and the philologists of Soviet Armenia especially have
come to the definite conclusion that the Hellenizing School
started in the second half of the fifth century, z presumably after
the return of the second generation of Armenian students, the
“Translators” as they are called, from the centres of Greek cul-
ture . 3

a translation. With all these presuppositions, then, he accepts the date of the trans-
lation as 552/56 or 560/64. {See Dowin Document, pp. 121-7.) We cannot accept
this dating for the simple reason that the presuppositions behind it are not well
founded, as has become evident from what we have said in the previous two chap-
ters.

1 See for the history and general characteristics of this School, Manandean,
Hellenizing School (on the characteristics, see col. 227-32); Abelean, Literature,
pp. 101-9; K'iparean, Literature, pp. 104-9; Thorossian, Literature, pp. 93-6;
Gabriclcan, Armenian Philosophy, pp. 305-437.

1 See Abelean, Literature, pp. 101-04, 106-07.

3 Those people whom P'arpefi mentioned in his letter could have been repre-
sentatives of this School. Indeed, it is more than probable that the doctrinal con-
troversies constituted a major factor in the formation of this School. Theological
terms such as owla—eut'ium, <jivair=hnut'ium, tm6<rramf= Anjn, rrp6aorrrov=

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON 169

Now, the translation of Timothy’s work is undoubtedly a
production of this School. Its language is markedly Hellenist.
Therefore, as we come to see more and more clearly the begin-
ning of the Hellenizing School as dating at least from the last
quarter of the fifth century, there is no difficulty at all in envisag-
ing the translation of Timothy’s work being done as early as
480-4.

(b) We have already noticed in Mandakuni’s and Xorenaci’s
treatises the influence of the Armenian translation of Timothy’s
work. As these two documents come from the fifth century, there
is a solid ground to accept the translation as being made in 480-4.

(c) The external evidence for a translation in the middle of the
sixth century comes from later periods, not before the end of the
seventh century. As we have noted, all the documents containing
this evidence have a common source. Therefore they must not be
taken as independent pieces of evidence testifying to the same
thing from different sources. Moreover, all of them come from
the Chalcedonian side. In fact, they try to show that the Ar-
menians first accepted the Council of Chalcedon and then, in the
middle of the sixth century, rejected it because they were misled
by the Monophysite Syrians. The biased theological attitude and
the inaccurate historical presentation of the facts in these docu-
ments are obvious, and it is therefore difficult to accept their
evidence without any critical approach. Again, it is difficult to
imagine that the translation of Timothy’s and Philoxenos’ books
took place at a Council, as the authors of these documents would
have us believe. They surely needed more time than the sessions
of a Council would allow them. Furthermore, is it not reason-
able to think that if the Syrians brought Timothy’s work to the
Armenians together with that of Philoxenos, they would have
brought its Syriac version, whereas the Armenian translation is
made from the Greek in a rather stereotyped form? This is

demk and many others had to be defined carefully and clearly. Hence, the im-
mense importance of Aristotle’s “Categories”. And we know that these disputes
had already become important issues towards the end of the fifth century.

170 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

indeed a most important question that has never been asked in
the discussion on the date of these translations.

With all these question marks we think that in the Council of
Dowin (552-4) the Syrians might have stated and expounded
their doctrinal position on the basis of Timothy’s and Philoxenos’
works which they had brought with them in order to prove their
orthodoxy. It could be that later this was interpreted by the
Chalcedonians as the cause of the separation of the Armenians.

In conclusion, as it is impossible to fix the precise date of these
translations on direct and unequivocal evidence, and for reasons
stated above, we definitely accept the view that the works were
translated in the fifth century and most probably in the years be-
tween 480 and 484, as was suggested by G. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean.

3. Another proof that shows that the Council of Chalcedon
was known to the Armenians is that with which bazar P‘arpeci
provides us. In his letter to Vahan Mamikonean he anathematizes,
among other heretics, Eutyches. This necessarily implies his
knowledge of the Council of Chalcedon. And as P'arpeci himself
was a Cyrilline and disposed against the Council of Chalcedon,
and as Eutyches was also condemned by the opponents of Chalce-
don, there is good reason to think that he was aware also of the
controversies which followed that Council. In the same way, the
second generation of the Armenian Translators — Giwt and those
whom P‘arpeci mentions in his letter — who went to study in
Byzantium and Alexandria 1 after the Council of Ephesus, and,
later, after the Council of Chalcedon, they could not be ignorant
of the burning issue of the time — an issue which was causing
bloodshed and murder and even involving the Byzantine mili-
tary forces.

Before concluding this chapter and after having contended that
the Council of Chalcedon was already opposed by the Armenian
Church in the fifth century, the question which we first raised
remains to be answered : Why then is the name of the Council of
Chalcedon absent from the literature of the fifth century ?

1 CfOrmanean, Azgapatum, col. 315-16.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: AFTER CHALCEDON 171

We can think of two reasons.

1. This was a time (482-500) when the Council of Chalcedon
was not only discredited on the whole in the Byzantine Empire,
but was completely disregarded or discarded particularly on the
eastern borders of the Empire. The Henoticon had made headway
in these provinces of North Mesopotamia and East Syria. It had
become so influential that the Nestorians found it difficult to
oppose this advance. Now, in this situation where the Council of
Chalcedon did not appear on the surface of things or, in other
words, when it was deliberately concealed under some kind of
official disregard, it must not be expected that the Armenians
would have opposed it as such. The choice for them was not ex-
plicitly or directly “either Chalcedon or anti-Chalcedon”. They
had to decide whether to adhere to the general doctrinal position
as expressed and maintained in the Henoticon or to oppose it. That
is clearly seen in and through the two documents we have already
mentioned, the Demonstration of Mandakuni and the Treatise of
Xorenaci.

We have no record of any official or formal acceptance of the
Henoticon, but its general theological position became the posi-
tion of the Armenian Church in the fifth century and, indeed,
even at the beginning of the sixth when they rejected ex-
pressly but not directly the Council of Chalcedon, as we shall see
later.

Therefore, it is reasonable to think that in such a state of affairs
one cannot expect an explicit anathema or an open rejection of
the Council of Chalcedon, which was not even proposed to them
for acceptance. The silence over it, then, is only natural. However,
their doctrinal position in this period was anti-Chalcedonian
without being directed against the Council as such.

2. The second reason is perhaps more important, because it has
a direct bearing on the position of the Armenian Church. As con-
stant attempts were being made to rally the Armenian Church to
Nestorianism, and as this latter was opposing the position form-
ulated in the Henoticon, it was possible that the Chalcedonian

172 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

christology, as well as the Chalcedonian cause, was identified with
the Nestorian. That this was the case can be seen in the later events
of the first half of the sixth century, when the Armenian Church
rejected Nestorianism once more and this time together with Chal-
cedon, the two being simply inseparable. We shall see this in the
last chapter. Surely the Nestorians were preaching the duality of
Christ’s nature. Chalcedon had distinguished very sharply be-
tween the two natures. Therefore, to refute one of these two
doctrines implied necessarily the rejection of the other. And
it is this refutation of the duality which we find both in the
Demonstration of John Mandakuni and the Treatise of Movses
Xorenaci.

If here we do not find any explicit mention of Nestorianism 1
that must be explained by the caution which was imposed espec-
ially upon John Mandakuni as he was the Catholicos, the head of
the Armenian Church. It must be remembered that 485 was the
date when Armenia recovered its political autonomy. Manda-
kuni was the successor of Giwt, whose difficulties with the Persian
Government could not have been forgotten so easily and so
quickly. The autonomy of Armenia was obtained with the fmal
consent of the Persian Government through an official pact . 2
Therefore this was a time when the Armenians had to be very
tactful in not giving any pretext for the revival of a hostile policy
towards their own country. For the previous twenty-five years
(451-85) they had been suffering from persecution and desolation.
So it was an act of wisdom to keep silence over the name of Nes-
torianism at that critical moment.

It was on account of these considerations, we think, that the
Armenian Church while it opposed the Chalcedonian christology,
in association with Nestorianism, did not reject the Council of
Chalcedon as such, simply because it was not put before them as
such. But their doctrinal attitude was already formed. The re-

1 Except one single reference to Nestorius in the list of heretics given by P‘ar-
pefi. (See above, p. 156.)

1 See above, pp. 71-2.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND! AFTER CHALCEDON I73

jection of the Council would follow as a natural consequence, as
we shall see.

Before studying the act of rejection, let us examine that doc-
trinal attitude more closely by means of an analysis of the docu-
ments in which it is embodied.

THE DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

We should be deflected far from the central theme of our study if
we attempted a thorough investigation of the whole corpus of
Armenian Christian literature of the period preceding the rejec-
tion of the Council of Chalcedon by the Armenian Church. But it
is essential to look into it and try to see the specifically doctrinal
background of that rejection.

The strictly theological part of that literature is not a vast field;
but it has not yet been sufficiently explored. Once we exclude from
it the historical part, such as the works of Agat‘angelos (Agath-
angelus), P'awstos Biuzandaci (Phaustus of Byzantium), Koriwn,
Elise, P'arpeci, Xorenaci, there remain few books which need to
be taken into account for such a purpose as ours. To name them:
(a) The Teaching of St Gregory, as embodied in Agafiangetos, 1
( h ) the Stromateis 2 traditionally known under the name of St
Gregory and often ascribed by scholars to St Mesrop Mastoc,- 3
(c) Eznik’s Adversus Haereses , 4 or De Deo, s and (d) the Homilies of

1 Vardapetut' iwn Srboytt Grigori presented by Agat’angelos as being the record
of St Gregory’s preaching immediately after his release from imprisonment in a
pit, where he had been put for having refused to deny Christ {Agat’angelos, chs,
32-98). It has also been ascribed to Mesrop Mastof. (See K'iparcan, Literature,
PP- 57-8.)

2 Yacaxapatum — Twenty-three homilies of moral content rather than doc-
trinal. (See Bibliography.)

3 See Abelean, Literature, pp. 125-7 ; Weber, Hatschachapatum, Preface.

* Etc Alattdof, Venice, 1926 (3rd ed.). See the critical edition together with a
French translation made by the late P. Maries in Patrologia Orientalis, t. xxviii,
Fasc.3,4, 1959.

3 See Maries’ Dc Deo d'Eztiik.

174

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

1 75

John Mandakuni. 1 First, we have to eliminate from this list Eznik’s
treatise, because christological themes are totally excluded from it.

When we look into the other three works we do not find any
form of christological doctrine in the technical sense of this word,
that is to say, a systematic presentation. The whole context and
purpose of these writings are really foreign to the polemical
character of the christological literature of the fourth and fifth
centuries. In fact they were written for the instruction of the
“simple soul” and, therefore, they teach Christian doctrine in a
rather elementary form. The authors are primarily concerned with
its moral aspects; the purely dogmatic elements are not given
any significant or important place. Indeed, the authors had before
them an audience newly converted from paganism, who needed
the “milk” before receiving the “solid food” ! It is not surprising,
then, that the christological doctrine in its dogmatic aspects and
in its polemical form, is entirely absent from these treatises. Per-
haps we can better understand the character of these writings if we
compare them with the homilies of St John Chrysostom or with
those ot St Ephraim Syrus, and not, for instance, with the treatises
of an Athanasius or the Orations of Nazianzus.

With this important observation in view, let us now look at
them separately.

1. The “ Teaching of St Gregory”

In the Teaching of St Gregory we have an exposition of the record
of God’s saving deeds. That is to say, an historico-theological
expose of the scriptural narrative of God’s relationship with man.

The author begins with a confessional statement on the Holy
Trinity, the foundation of all Christian doctrine and the source of
all Christian life. Then he relates the story of the creation as being
the work of the Holy Trinity. He dwells upon the doctrine of man
longer than on any other theme and shows his supreme and unique
place in God’s creation. Then follow the story of the fall, the nar-
rative of Adam’s generation throughout the centuries as recorded

1 dark', Venice, i860. On the authorship of these homilies see Additional Note,

176 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

in the Old Testament, the prediction by the prophets of Christ’s
coming, the act of the Incarnation, the life and work of Christ —
given in very general terms and centred on the specifically divine
and saving acts. Here he inserts exhortations to the people to fol-
low Christ, because all that Christ did was done for them. Then
come the Apostles as those who continue Christ’s work through
his Church. Finally, he closes his Teaching with the doctrine of the
eschatological hope.

Now, in all these instructions one can hardly find any speci-
fically christological doctrine as this is understood in the context
of the christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.
However, there are some passages in the middle of the Teaching —
when the author speaks on the Incarnation as such — where there
are expressions which have a not unimportant significance. Thus
we read :

God the holy Son was sent from God (the Father); he took flesh
from the Virgin [and became] perfect man with perfect Godhead; he
showed forth the power of the divinity and exposed the weakness of
the flesh.

A little further on he stresses the unity;

Those who believed in the flesh [he] manifested to them his Godhead;
and those who erred [in their belief concerning] the flesh they denied
his nature (i.e. his human nature). For, he united [himself] to the
flesh in [his] nature and mixed the flesh with his Godhead.'

Again,

He is himself in the essence, as, indeed, [it is said] “He who is”; but
when he willed he took the form of man and put on flesh and came
into our image (lit. “likeness” or “resemblance”).

He was truly embodied in the flesh as though he was infinite. He
became true man. He is at the same time, by his divinity in heaven
and on earth.

Although he came into humiliation for our sake, yet he remains in
his nature, as he himself says “I am the same and did not change”. 2

1 Agadangelos, xxxviii, pp. 275-6. 2 See Mai. 3.6.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

177

For although he took the form and the flesh of man, yet he mixed,
unified, and submerged (lit. “sank”) it in his divinity . 1

Then he urges his hearers :

Believe in the Trinity; believe in the truth of the unity in utter silence
[or] in silent faith. How can we, earth-bound creatures, search and
know the unexplorable and unsearchable Highest? How can we
who have beginning examine him who is without beginning and is
incomprehensible?

The true faith is this : He descended and mixed [his] Godhead with
[our] manhood and the immortal with the mortal, so that he could
make us participants in the immortality of his Godhead ; thus, when
the Son of God, equal to the Father, came with his flesh to the right
hand of the Father, he united (lit. “mixed”) us to Godhead . 2

Now it is not difficult to see in these expressions a strong em-
phasis on the unity. If we cannot show the direct connection of
these expressions with Alexandrian christology — the historical
evidence is not sufficiently strong — we see no difficulty at all in
recognizing in them the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers,
namely that of Gregory of Nazianzus . 3 Therefore, purely on theo-
logical grounds, we have here an important aspect of christology
which — it is worth noting— has no connection with the Antio-
chene doctrinal tradition and gives us a hint to the theological
milieu of the background now under discussion . 4

1 Agat'angelos, xl, pp. 281-2; cfp. 286.

2 Agat'angelos, xl, pp. 285-6.

3 If this is true, then the author of the Teaching cannot be Gregory the Illum-
inator, who had died in 325, before St Gregory of Nazianzus was born. In fact,
Gregory of Nazianus has often used the words (see Orat. xxx, 3: P.C.,
t. 36, col. 105; Orat. xxxviii, 12: P.G., col. 325; see also the Seal of Faith, p. 350),
Kpams (see Carm., Bk. ii, sect, i, I 612: P.G., t. 37, col. 107; cf Gregory of Nyssa,
Ad Theoph.; see also Mueller, Opera Minora, p. 126), ovyKpaais (Epist. Cl:
P.G.,t. 37, col. 180).

4 It is interesting to note that the longest passages quoted from St Gregory in
the Seal of Faith are taken from the chapters we have quoted from the Teaching.
The compiler must have noted the christological significance of the passages in the
seventh century. (See Seal of Faith, pp. 146-55.)

173 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

2. The “ Stromateis" or Yafaxapatum

The twenty-three homilies which constitute the contents of this
work touch upon a large variety of themes. To give some ex-
amples: the Holy Trinity, the significance of faith, the consti-
tution of the created beings, the virtues, abstinence, repentance,
providence, martyrs, and so on.

The christological problem is not touched at all. We hoped to
find something in this respect at least in the homilies on the Holy
Trinity." Only in the second homily entitled “On the distinctions
(lit: ‘properties’) of the Holy Trinity” is there a passage 2 on the
Incarnation where he speaks of Christ’s work rather than of his
person. The writer refers only to Christ’s taking our human na-
ture and passing through all human experiences except sin. As the
homily was intended for the spiritual instruction or edification of
the faithful, it is understandable that there is no further inquiry
into the nature of the act of the Incarnation as such. On the other
hand, there are elaborate assertions on the relationship and im-
portance of the Incarnation to the believer. Christ became man
so that we could become sons of God. Then follow statements on
how to understand and live this message. Thus the whole tone of
the passage, and indeed of all the homilies, is not dogmatic but
spiritual, devotional, and moral. 3 Therefore this book cannot
help us in our investigation of the doctrinal background. 4

3. The Homilies of John Mandakuni

Like the homilies of St Gregory the Illuminator, those known
under the name of John Mandakuni are almost exclusively de-
voted to the exposition of the moral teaching of Christ and the
general principles of Christian doctrine, without any specific ref-

1 Horn, i: “On the Most Holy Trinity”, pp. 1-3. Horn, ii: “On the distinc-
tions in the Holy Trinity”, pp. 4-18. Horn, xxii: “On the unchangeable essence
of God”, pp. 202-5.

2 See Horn, ii, pp. 15-16.

1 We may note that the first homily and the first part of the second arc quoted
in the Seal of Faith, pp. 18-22.

4 See a summary of the contents and quite a fair presentation of the nature of
the work in Abelean, Literature, pp. 127-33.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

179

erence to the chnstological problem of the time . 1 Even a quick
look at the titles of the homilies will suffice to convince us on this
point.

In only one of the homilies, “On the Holy Trinity and on the
Nativity of Christ our Lord ” 2 is there a passage in which the
unity in Christ is emphasized. I translate it:

The only-begotten Word by the will of the Father came to the earth
and took flesh from the holy Virgin; he suffered, was buried, the
third day rose and sat on the right [side] of the Father; he shall come
again to judge the quick and the dead. He who was without mother
as regards [his] essence and without father as regards [his] economy
(i.c. the Incarnation), came to save us, the creatures. It is not possible
for God himself to suffer; lie could not die either. Therefore, he who
was God came and became man, died and saved us, the creatures. No
creator, saviour, and life-giver other than he was or will be, or is
ever to be, but only the one, the only-begotten, the God who was
bom of the Virgin and made man. For, many men knew God, saw
God, and spoke of God; but they [all] are called men in so far as
their nature is concerned. Some in body went up to the heavens, but
even there they are men as regards their nature, or angels, but never
God. In a similar way, the Word of God came to the earth and be-
came man and died as man; but according to [his] essence he is called
God and not man ; accordmg to the economy [he is called] God In-
carnate (lit. “made man”) and not man deified (lit. “made God”).
[Henceforth being] man both in heaven and on the earth, he is
one and the same, united, through the union of the flesh and God-
head . 3

In this last statement we have a clear indication of his way of con-
ceiving the unity of Christ. But he does not go further and tell us
how that unity is to be explained. This shows that here he was not
concerned with the technical exposition of the christological doc-
trine. He did that in a special treatise, the Demonstration, as we shall
see in a moment.

1 Fr B. Sargisean, who has studied the homilies from both philological and theo-
logical points of view, has not found any important christological teaching in
them. (See Mandakuni , pp. 33 1-3.)

2 Sec Homilies, pp. 212-13. 3 Ibid.

180 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

So, after this rapid review of the Armenian theological litera-
ture prior to the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon we come
to dwell at some length on the two christological documents
which we have already mentioned, and which come from the last
quarter of the fifth century, a time when the Chalcedonian prob-
lem had come to the attention of the Armenian Church, as we
showed in the previous chapter.

4. The Treatise of Mouses Xorenaci

In the Book of Letters we have a document under the name of
Movses Xorenaci and placed between the correspondence of
Acacius with Sahak Catholicos and the Demonstration of John
Mandakuni. 1 It is written in a language strongly Hellenist, which
makes the understanding of it rather difficult. It is an apologia for
the “One Nature” and, at the same time, a refutation of the “ Two
Natures”. The arguments for his thesis are of a philosophical
(dialectical) nature. The author has also given due weight to the
scriptural evidence. The treatise reveals that he was a highly com-
petent theologian, well versed in Greek philosophy as well as in
Biblical exegesis. The last paragraph suggests that the treatise had
been written as a letter to a person. Abelean thinks 2 that Manda-
kuni could have been that person. This is only a conjecture in the
sphere of sheer probability. However, it is not difficult to find
some affinities between this letter and Mandakuni’s Demons-
tration.

Before coming to the actual presentation of its christology it is
necessary to say something of its authenticity, which has been
challenged by some scholars. Among these, Malxaseanc was the
one who dealt with the problem at some length and argued cate-
gorically that the treatise was a forgery. Xorenaci could not have
written it, because he was a convinced Chalcedonian. This
contention of Malxaseanc is the result of his own analysis and
interpretation of the fifth-century ecclesiastical situation as repres-
ented in P'arpeci’s letter and Xorcnaci’s Lamentations. For him the
Syrophiles in Armenia were the anti-Chalcedonians and the
1 See B.L.,pp. 22-8. 1 See Literature, p. 65.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

181

Hellenophiles the Chalcedonians. Therefore, as Xorenaci was a
representative of this second group it follows that he was a Chalce-
donian in his doctrinal position. He also thinks that the Syro-
philes, being not highly educated people, could not understand
the subtle nuances of the Chalcedonian definitions . 1 How, then,
could such a Chalcedonian theologian who had even been perse-
cuted for his doctrinal attitude have written a treatise or a letter
against the Council of Chalcedon? These arguments, of course,
cannot stand up to the slightest criticism. They are deduced from
generalizations that have no weight, because they are not sup-
ported by any historical or theological evidence. From what was
said in the previous chapter it is evident that this interpretation is
far from being acceptable to us, as it has been unacceptable to
many others before us. The only concrete evidence which he
brings forth to substantiate his view is taken from a ninth-century
Georgian writer, Arsen Catholicos Saparaci, who in his treatise on
the separation of the Armenian and Georgian Churches says that
Komitas, the Armenian Catholicos (of the seventh century)

interpreted (= translated?) the heretical writings of Timothy the
Alexandrian who was called “Aelurus”, Peter the Fuller who was
called “Wolf”, Severus, and other heretics; he entitled these writings
in such a way that they were taken as the homilies of St Sahak and
Movses, and through this sort of forgery he made the whole of
Armenia accept the faith [of these heretics ]. 2

Abelean, who has successfully refuted Malxaseanc’s thesis,
shows how ambiguous is this testimony and how unfounded the
conclusion that Malxaseanc draws from it. How can one identify
the forgeries so ambiguously referred to by Saparaci with the
Treatise of the Book of Letters. In fact, Arsen says that the works of
Timothy, Peter, and Severus were put under the names of Sahak
and Movses; whereas, in this treatise we have a very brief letter
written by Movses himself. Although it betrays some influences
of Timothy’s Refutation, it is not a translation of any part of it.

1 See Malxascanf, Xorenafi-Riddle, pp. 135-40.

2 Melik' set‘-Bek, Georgian Sources, p. 38.

182 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

The validity and value of Arsen’s testimony is questionable in it-
self. It we take it seriously, then we must believe that Sahak was a
Chalcedonian ! In fact, his death preceded the Council of Chalcedon
by some twelve years ! Then we have to accept also that Komitas
was so foolish as to ascribe works written after 470 — some even
in the sixth century — to a person, the famous Armenian Catho-
licos Sahak, who had already died in 439. How could Komitas
have made the Armenian vardapets of later centuries believe in
such flagrant anachronisms ? Komitas’ life and work as we know it
through the authentic sources of the Armenian historiographers
cannot provide any context for such forgeries. 1

Thus, accepting the authenticity of the document, let us look
at its christology.

Xorenaci opens his treatise with a strong assertion of the idea of
“One Nature”. This idea put in the opening phrase remains the
comer stone of his whole treatise. He says that as the living crea-
tures being composed of many elements have but one nature, so
one single creature’s nature has to be one. In the same way,
according to the divine Scriptures the Word Incarnate is one
nature. Those who divide this unity are mistaken and have to be
refuted.

No one can understand the “how” of God’s work. It is simply
unknowable like the formation of the bones in the womb of a
pregnant woman. Thus, the great prophet 2 tells us that God with
one command created the world and man; but he does not tell us
how or of what he created them. Therefore, we have to confine
ourselves to what the Scriptures say and not raise problems.
Although Moses himself knew all the science of the Egyptians
concerning the creation and the movements of the created things,
he did not say anything from his own or from his acquired know-
ledge, but only that which the Holy Spirit revealed to him. Greek
science can also show this, because the Greeks in their search for

1 See for a thorough treatment of this problem Abelean, Literature, pp. 653-8;
cf Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Sea? of Faith-Introduction., pp. lix-lx; Idem, Mandakuni, p. 92.

2 He refers to Moses who obviously is taken here as the author of the Penta-
teuch.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

183

knowledge received assistance from Moses. Thus they understood
man 1 as being constituted of four elements 2 and the soul of three
parts . 3 Now, how is it that man, being formed of these elements,
is said to be “one nature”? The two are not confused; that is to
say, the flesh is not soul and the soul is not flesh. Each maintains
its own properties. The distinctness of the two is not destroyed
by their unity.

The Incarnation of the Word must be understood in the same
manner. It we cannot understand how this happens, we need not
be surprised, because the descent of Christ is above all miracles.
Therefore, it is proper for the confessors of the truth to say “One
Nature ”. 4

But if some, considering this answer impossible, suppose the con-
trary, as if it were proper to say “Two Natures” let them know
that the same impossibility is recognizable in [the case] of man, and
this [is seen] not only through philosophical categories but also in
the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures . 5

In fact, the Bible presents the flesh as created out of worthless clay
and breath and soul by the breathing of the Uncreated. The
Apostle also recognized this distinction . 6 Christ’s teaching (i.e.
the Gospels) shows more clearly that the spirit is more than the
flesh . 7 It is not possible to conclude that these two natures are two
entities endowed with will, and those who say so are supporters
of Apollinarius and his followers, who preached a foolish and
corrupted doctrine. In the doctrine of the Incarnation we must
confess Christ One in his nature, because it is said “the Word
became flesh” and that “he took the form (lit. “image”,
“resemblance”, or “likeness”) of a servant”. The meaning of the
Scriptures is clear: that which was taken by the Word was that
which he did not have. Therefore, the two, the Word and the
flesh, which were distinct, separate, became one. Those who find

J He means the physical nature of man, or simply, the body.

2 hol= soil, ]ur— water, awd= air, hur= fire.

3 fnc' 'akan= psychic, zgayun — emotional, banak,m = rational or intellectual.

4 See B.L., pp. 22-3. 5 B.L., pp. 23-4.

6 See 1 Thess. s,23. 7 Matt. 6.25 ; cf 10.28; Luke 12.23.

184 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

this union (of the natures) to be impossible, should not confess in
word the union of the persons . 1

It is said (in the Scriptures), “He who was in the form of God took
the form of a Servant”. You see, it says form and form; which form
is then absorbed in the mixture according to their confession? For if
[they think] that the union of the two natures results in confusion,
then they have to understand the same for the persons. Indeed, their
sayings are ridiculous . . . because, as in the legendary tales, they
create one head and two tails ! 2

Then he attacks these preachers of duality, and deplores their posi-
tion which runs contrary to the faith as proclaimed in the whole
world, namely that “the Word after taking the flesh , 3 then soul 4
and the spirit 3 is one Lord Jesus Christ”. Christ had always been
confessed one in everything he did. He was not man at one time
and God at another time. We do not know, he says, how these
people came to this teaching or from where they took it.

After this attack on the “dividers”, as he calls them, he puts
before them an alternative proposition; “It is necessary either to
put away this awkward division because of the proper union, or
to deny it (i.e. the union or the Incarnation as such) altogether. ”
He asks them: “Whty do you like to mutilate it [by supposing] a
half concord (“communion” or “union”) as if two entities could
not make one entity ?” 6 He mentions by name a number of
Church Fathers with references to the works of some of them in
order to substantiate his view . 7 Then follows a list of Biblical

1 The Armenian word is dimac (Nominative case, dernk') which has been used
very freely in Armenian christological writings. Generally, it can be said that it
corresponds to vpiaomov. Here it stands for vvonraaif, because obviously in this
passage Xorenayi tries to show that for those who say “Two Natures in one
Person”, this expression amounts to an empty notion if they cannot conceive a
unity in nature. Undoubtedly we have here a direct indication to the Chalce-
donian formula. This provides us with a further argument for our contention
that Xorenafi was in fact attacking the doctrine of Chalcedon without men-
tioning the name.

1 B.L., pp. 24-s. 3 marmin — aw/Mi. 4 hogi=‘pvxv-

5 mi(h'= wiCf. 6 B.L., p. 25.

7 The list, together with the references collated with the corresponding pas-
sages in Timothy’s Refutation, is given above, pp. 165-d.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

185

citations which are brought in to confirm his view. I give the
references: 1 John 5.20; Isa. 7.14; Gal. 4.4; Isa. 63.9; John 9.35-8;
10.30; 14.9-11.

He assures his readers that it is impossible to find any scrip-
tural evidence for two natures as separated or divided. If the
opponents boast of their knowledge of profane philosophy and use
it for affirming their position, let them come forward that their
deficiencies may be exposed. Here he tries to trap his opponents
in their own words :

We already said a little earlier that the flesh is not soul nor the soul
flesh; let us leave aside other things (arguments). Now, the one nature
of the word is the divinity and the other (i.e. the human) stands in
juxtaposition or is parallel [with it]. Which [part] of the human
nature do they single out — the soul without the spirit or the flesh?
[But] there is no need to speak that language if we believe that the
flesh and the soul are one nature . 1

Therefore, he concludes, in an ironical tone, their teaching is
like a sepulchre which looks beautiful from outside, but is full of
corruption. 2 Then he draws the conclusion of his argument in
more serious terms:

Here they (the “dividers”) must be speechless in all embarrassment,
and accept [their] defeat, because if they persist in saying two, then
they tear apart the human nature and deprive the soul or the body
from the salvation [wrought] by him who took it ; 3 in the same way
they cut into two the divine by uniting the person [of the Word]
with the human person. But if they consent to confess the union,
which is true, they will not then dare to proclaim the two loudly and
without inhibition [lit. “with mouths without door ”]. 4

He closes his treatise with an exhortation to glorify God and
never to confess the Incarnate Lord as man and God separately
but united, and finally, not to attempt presumptuously to under-
stand the mystery which is unsearchable. The last paragraph, as

1 B.L., p. 27. 1 See Matt. 23.27.

3 The Alexandrian tradition is strikingly shown in this soteriological approach
to the understanding of the nature of the Incarnation.

4 B.L.,p.27.

186 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

we have already noted, is addressed to a person to whom he sent
this treatise as a letter. He was probably asked by him to write it.

5. The Demonstration of John Mandakuni

This is an attempt to demonstrate, as the title itself shows, why it
is right to confess the Saviour “of Two Natures’’ (eV Svo <f>voe aw)
or “One Nature” (/ata </>vats).

It is a longer expose than Xorenaci’s. 1 Whereas in Xorenaci’s
treatise — the work of an intellectualist theologian — we have an
attempt at mainly philosophical justification of the unity of
Christ’s nature, here, in Mandakuni’s Demonstration, we find a
more Biblical justification of the same doctrine accompanied by a
remarkably pastoral and irenical character. Its style is easier and
more straightforward.

Its authenticity, although sometimes suspected, is now generally
accepted. The main argument against its authenticity had been
based on the Hellenistic linguistic characteristics which are
found in it. But now that argument is ruled out, on the grounds
of our new understanding of the origins of the “Hellenizing
School” which was presented earlier. 2 Therefore we need not
dwell on this problem at any length as the authenticity is generally
accepted on the whole. 3 Let us turn to its christology. 4

Just like Xorenaci, he asserts right from the beginning that the
Scriptures — “the Testaments of the Prophets and Apostles” —
“nowhere mention the duality 5 of the two natures, so we ought
to confess, in an unswerving confession of faith, the Word
God [who is] in the Trinity as Incarnate (i.e. “become flesh”)”. 6
It is by the Holy Spirit that we confess Jesus as Lord. 7 The Holy

1 SeeitinB.L.,pp. 29-40. 1 See above, pp. 168-9.

3 See Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Mandakuni, pp. 92-4; Idem, Seal of Faith-Introduction,
pp. lix-bdi; cf Abelean , Literature, pp. 378-9; Tallon, Livre desLcttres, p. 81.

♦ A schematical summary of the contents, under headings and sub-headings, can
be found in Tallon, Livre des Lettres, pp. 103-4. It must be said that Tallon is the
first scholar who has studied this document with a thorough investigation.

5 The Armenian word is aylut'iwn, which Tallon translates “alteritc”. Here, the
word points to the fact that the natures are not to be understood in the sense of
“ One and the other ”, Therefore the underlying idea is the duality.

6 B.L., pp.29. 7 See 1 Cor. 2.10.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

I8 7

Spirit teaches the truth. Those who assume that honour for them-
selves will be condemned. He, then, urges his people to walk in
the royal path without turning to the right or to the left and always
following the experienced navigator so that they may reach the
safe harbour (lit. “the port of Salvation”). What can be that safe
harbour if not the solidity of the unshakeable and true faith handed
down by the Apostles and the Prophets? In other words, it means
simply to believe in one Father Almighty, in his Word without
beginning, and in the Holy Spirit. “As we believe in the Father
Almighty, we triumph. 1 Our mind cannot understand this, be-
cause the Almighty comprehends everything [and] he remains in-
comprehensible.” The “how”, again, is above our understanding.

Then he attacks all those heretics who teach separation in Christ.
If, he says, there really was a division in the inseparable union of
Christ, then he himself would not have said, “I and my Father
are one”, 2 * or, “He who sees me sees my Father”, 3 or again,
“Know and see that I am in the Father and the Father is in me”. 4

You see, he reveals himself as an image, a ray shone out for us from
the light; he never speaks of the two things 5 as going side by side or
as walking on parallel roads, each being distinct from one another,
such as Peter and John travelling side by side to the [same] end ; it
is inappropriate to interpret these two (Peter and John) as one. As
regards the various names of the Lord, our Saviour, those are not
taught as implying many persons or various natures but One Lord
Jesus Christ [together] with the flesh. 6

The passage which follows is quite a long one in which he tries
to show that those who speak of many natures and strive to
search the divine being (which is unsearchable) are miserably mis-
taken; they resemble people who have fallen seriously ill; the
orthodox doctors (i.e. the orthodox Fathers) used various methods
to heal them from their sickness. In order to show them the truth,

1 Cf 1 John 5.4. s. z Johnio.30.

3 John 14.9. 4 See John 14.10.

5 The Armenian word otnatif suggests the idea of a person.

6 B.L.,pp. 30-1.

1 88 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

they put before them the example of man’s nature. 1 He justifies
this method by saying that they had to use the dialectic discourse
of those who fought the orthodox doctrine. Here St Paul is called
on to justify this procedure (see I Cor. 9.20). Thus, as physicians
approaching the heretics they examined human nature in order to
show them that, as is obvious, the nature of the flesh and of the
soul and of the spirit are different things, and yet man is one nature.
But how he is one out of these different natures is something that
remains unsearchable, and he who searches is cast into doubt. 2 At
this juncture he asks :

So, if one cannot search the [nature of] man made one of many
[natures] 3 or his closest companion or even himself, how then
would one be able to comprehend the Creator by defining the unex-
plorable mystery of the Incarnation? If such is the mystery, then it
is not mystery. For, [in that case], the searcher who defines has to
consider himself as being greater and higher than he who receives
[upon himself] the definition. Do you see the shipwreck of this in-
correct way of searching? It was for people of this kind that Paul
said: “They made shipwreck of their faith.” 4 For, we must not con-
template more than to confess him as Almighty and Creator and
Lord. 5 In the same way, the Creation — how God created us out of
nothing — is above all understanding. Only the Creator knows.

With these premises put so firmly, he proceeds to the teaching
of the 3 1 8 bishops of Nicaea. He says that they taught contrary to
those who denied that Christ was of the essence of the Father, or
that he was one nature, i.e., the divine nature of the Word of the
Father by whom all things were made.

It was this same Son who, as the Nicene Creed says, “des-
cended, took flesh and became man, and was bom in a perfect
manner from Mary, the holy Virgin”. After quoting this passage,

1 He specifically mentions Apollinarius and shows how he and his followers
erred and consequently lost the salvation promised to us.

2 See 1 Cor. 2.1 1.

3 This shows an apparent affinity with the Treatise of Movses Xorenafi. Did
Mandakuni know Movses’ Treatise ? Perhaps it was he who asked the latter to
write it, as Abelean has suggested.

4 1 Tim. 1. 19.

3 B.L., pp. 32-3.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

189

he immediately denounces those who say that the “descending”
was only in appearance and not in truth. He then refutes the doc-
trine which teaches that Christ became man in the sense that he
inhabited the flesh by “complaisance and will”. 1 He refutes the
objection raised by such people, namely that the divine cannot be
contained in space. His arguments are taken from Jeremiah 23.24,
Isaiah 66.1, and Psalm 135.6. After all, God is omnipotent. In this
sense he can unite with the flesh, otherwise “who, if not the im-
pious can draw limits to the incomprehensible essence by show-
ing it (i.e. the essence) in various places?” Then he advises his
readers in a fatherly tone not to dabble in such troubled waters,
which bring death, but to believe in the Incarnation and glorify it
in wonder because it is above all miracles. 2

Now he embarks upon the Scriptural evidence for his teaching.
Starting from John 1.10, he first invites his readers to put aside all
futile and misleading speculations concerning the natures and to
turn to the message of the Gospels and to the predictions of the
Prophets. What does he find there? The word “nature” was not
yet heard when the New Testament writer said: “The life was
made manifest, and we saw him, and now bear witness to him;
for he who was with the Father was made manifest to us.” 3 Some
people seeing only the form of the flesh— which he truly was in
becoming man— called him “Son of Joseph”, 4 “Samaritan”, 3
“blasphemer”. 6 But those who were gifted with spiritual eyes,
capable of grasping the intelligible, confessed him “reflection of
the glory and stamp of the essence of the Father without be-
ginning”. 7 For “ they heard from the life-giving Saviour and be-
lieved [what he said] : “I am in the Father and the Father is in me”. 8

1 Tallon has already noticed — and rightly, ! believe — that the christology of
Theodore of Mopsuestia is implicitly being refuted here. Most probably, the Nes-
torians, whose activities in Armenia we have already discussed, were teaching
Nestorianism clothed with Theodorean terminology. As we have already noted,
Theodore was much more widely known and highly revered in this part of the
world than Nestorius.

2 SeeB.i., pp. 33-4.

5 John 8.48.

8 John 14.10.

3 See rjohn, l.z.
* Matt. 9.3.

•* John d.42 ; cf Luke 4.22.
■> Heb. 1.3.

190 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Now, what would the searcher of the natures who calls himself
Christian say here ? Which nature did the disciples see ? That of
the Godhead, or that of the flesh ? It is evident that they saw the
flesh.” 1

The most obvious and incontestable evidence is found in Luke
24.39: “Touch me and see; a spirit has no flesh, neither bones as
you see me have”, and Mandakuni adds, referring to the flesh,
“Which he took by his descent from David. They (i.e. the dis-
ciples) gazed upon him as upon one of men, yet, the Word was
united to the flesh ; [thus] he removed the difference of the separ-
ation. For he did not say, ‘ He who saw the nature of the div-
inity or of the flesh’, but he said, without dividing, ‘Me’.” Again,
he quotes St John (3.13): “No one has ascended into heaven but
he who is descended from heaven, the son of man who is in
heaven.”

Now, where was the Son of Man? In heaven whence he descended,
as it is said? Well, let them show us. If the flesh was heavenly [then]
he could not have been called “Son of Man”; and if [it was] from
the earth and from the descendants of Abraham, as I boldly do con-
fess, how then was he in heaven? [This all becomes intelligible] if we
understand it correctly; that is to say, in virtue of the inseparable
union. 2

In the next passage he says that if we believe in Christ’s own
words, then, we must put away all talk on duality or division.
Otherwise we should resemble the Pharisee who said: “Thou art
a man and makest thyself God.”- 3 Again, “If there was separation
in the distinction then why are Jews condemned; for they put
hands upon the man [only] out of the zeal they had for the in-
visible and incomprehensible nature of God.” 4 If this was the case
the Jews in fact surpassed the piety of their ancestors when they
cried : “Take him away from us and crucify him.” 5

' B.L., pp. 34-5. 2 B.L., p. 35.

3 John 10.33 . 4 B.L., p. 3 5.

5 John 19.15. Other texts also are brought in, among them John 10.30, a kind
of watchword for the Monophysite polemists.

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

191

He emphasizes the importance of Isaiah 53.5, because here the
prophet shows both the reality and the excellence of Christ’s
wounds. Paul also called the Crucified the “Lord of Glory”. 1
The prophet 2 in his turn predicted that God himself would come
and save us and not send messengers or angels. Armed with these
arguments, he exclaims: “O, the power of the word (the Scrip-
tures) which overthrows the bands of the separatist, dyophysite
heresy.” 3 However, he does not stop here. He goes on to bring
more evidence from the Scriptures. “Again here [Paul] shuts the
mouths of those who, by distinguishing, teach separation; for he
writes to the Corinthians 4 what he himself received, [namely] that
‘Christ died for our sins’, and in another place that ‘He alone has
immortality’. 5 Does he, in fact, preach two Christs? Here is what
he himself confesses, namely ‘One Lord is Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor.
8.6). ” 6 The Apostles and the Prophets have no place for the doc-
trine of the two natures. On the contrary, “they know one Lord:
he who died and he who remained immortal”.

Here Mandakuni brings in the analogy of the human body. He
says that although in one body there are many members which are
distinguished according to their functions, yet the togetherness of
those many functions and the union in which they exist in the body
make all the members one body and one man. We must under-
stand the Incarnation in a similar way. 7 As the canon of faith (i.e.
the Nicene Creed) says:

1 1 Cor. 2.8. 2 See Isa. 35.4; cf 63.9. 3 B.L., p. 36.

4 1 Cor. 15.3. 5 1 Tim. 6.16. 6 B.L.,p. 36.

7 This analogy indeed shows a conception of unity in Christ which does not
seem to be in accord with the Orthodox Monophysite conception as a whole.
Surprisingly enough, Mandakuni himself, elsewhere in this same treatise, asserts
a closer, more intimate kind of union than the one which is suggested in this com-
parison. It seems that there is an inconsistency here. Is it to be explained by the
supposition that here Mandakuni was attacking those who separated the natures
by giving each of them an activity of its own? Tallon contends that Mandakuni
knew the text of Leo’s Tome in which the separatist tendency is markedly strong.
In it the natures are hypostatized. If our supposition is correct, then, this compar-
ison becomes understandable : Mandakuni wanted to combat this separatist ten-
dency by bringing in the example of the human body in which various functions
of constituent members are not separate from each other, but united in the human
nature.

192 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

The Word God took flesh and became man; thus he united to him-
self, in God-fitting manner, the body of our lowliness, 1 the whole
soul and flesh, and the flesh truly became the flesh of the Word God.
In virtue of this it is said of the Invisible that he is seen, of the In-
tangible that he is felt, crucified, buried, and risen in the third day ;
for he himself was [both] the passible and the impassible, the im-
mortal who received death. Otherwise, how would the Father have
given [his] Only-Begotten, or [how would] the Lord of Glory have
been crucified? This is like the one body which is formed of many
members, although these latter have not the same function. For the
soul in itself does not suffer [any] wounding, neither the flesh
affliction, and the Word is incapable of both. But in everything he is
[the one] who suffers and [the same] who is impassible and because
of that he is said to be man and God by having the definition of
“ God Incarnate ”. 2

Again, he urges his readers not to follow the Dyophysites, be-
cause if they did, they would be condemned as the Jews were for
having separated Christ. The opponents argue that the Word
accepted the adoration as being addressed only to him; in the
same way he received the outrages, not by his nature, but by his
will. He says that Moses was called “god to Pharaoh”, 3 or again
we read in the Scriptures, “You are gods”, 4 or “He who receives
you receives me”. 5 But these have to be understood as sheer
appellations. Nowhere were these people said to be God. But he
who was bom of the Virgin is truly God. He quotes Isaiah 9.6;
53.8. It is this same Lord who appeared on earth and walked with
men.

Again he stresses the fact that those who carefully study the
Scriptures — the Prophets and the Apostles — will soon realize
without any doubt that Christ is not considered as God, but is God.
Therefore only the impious man can say that Christ — he who
came to us — was not God, that is to say, he who was with the
Father. He directs his readers to John 1.1; 7.27; 20.27-9. In this
latter text we have the episode of the Apostle Thomas meeting
Christ after the resurrection.

1 Phil. 3.21. 2 B.L., pp. 36-7. 3 Ex. 7.1.

4 Ps. 82.6 ;cf John 10.34. 5 Matt. 10.40; cf John 13.20; Gal. 4,14.

doctrinal background

193

In the concluding passage he asks his readers : Whom are we to
follow? To consent to the testimony of the Prophets and the
Apostles or to quarrelsome people who arrogantly speak of God
and divide him with terrible separations ? We cannot follow these
latter

because the Word is the Word of the flesh and the flesh is the flesh
of the Word . 1 [This is so] not by supposition or reckoning [or] by
the excellence of the honour, hut by true union. For in all the Cath-
olic Churches it is always proclaimed: “He shall come with the
same flesh”, with that which the disciples saw going up to the heav-
ens, and to which the evangelist bears witness: “from the beginning
they were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” (Luke, 1.2 ). 2

Therefore, this being the true faith, let us flee from those who do
not agree with it and by raising problems teach blasphemies. In
doing this and in glorifying the Holy Trinity we can inherit the
promised eternal life . 3

There is no need to comment in detail on the christological
contents of these documents. They are quite clear in themselves.
However, it is perhaps necessary to draw some conclusions from
them in the light which they themselves provide.

Given the evidence of the documents, it is not possible to think
that the theological mind of the Armenians was a tabula rasa before
the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. It is necessary to make
this assertion, because there are still people, and sometimes serious
scholars , 4 who continue to repeat the old and totally uncritical

1 Here there is a striking affinity with Cyril’s nth Anathematism in which the
unity between the Word and the flesh is conceived as a very intimate one. It runs
as this : “ If anyone does not confess the flesh of our Lord to be life-giving and the
own flesh of the Word himself conjoined to him in dignity, or having a mere divine
in-dwelling, and not rather life-giving, as we affirm, because it became the own
flesh of the Word who hath strength to quicken all things, be he anathema”
(Bindley, Ecumenical Documents, p. 219; Greek text, Ibid., pp. 1 14-15; Armenian
text in B.L., p. 405).

2 B.L., p. 39- 3 See B.L., pp. 39-40.

♦ Among these is, for example, Fr V. Inglizean (see Arm. Kirche, pp. 363-70).

We shall consider his view in the next chapter.

194 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

view that the Armenian. Church Fathers in the fifth century were
completely ignorant and inexperienced in theological thinking
and, therefore, could not make any decision of their own con-
cerning the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon. Besides the
monumental work of Eznik, whose philosophical and theological
penetration alone could challenge categorically this traditional
view, these documents provide us with solid arguments in chang-
ing the antiquated interpretation of the doctrinal situation of the
Armenian Church in the fifth century.

Of course one can pick out certain passages from them which
reveal perhaps a rather naive approach to the problems. But those
things are common to both the Chalcedonian and anti-Chalce-
donian controversialists of the fifth century. In fact, the sixth
century was the time when on both sides there were considerable
developments. The doctrines of both sides went through a pro-
cess of systematization which immensely contributed towards the
understanding of the doctrinal definitions of the Council of Chal-
cedon and the monophysite position. The names of Leontius of
Byzantium and many other neo-Chalcedonists on the one
hand, and Severus of Antioch, on the other, are significant in
seeing and appreciating this change. The Armenian theology of
the later centuries, particularly that of the seventh, went through
the same process.

The basic fact is that in these documents we have a theological
refutation of the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon. The total
absence from Mandakuni’s Demonstration of any specific mention
either of the Council of Chalcedon, or even of Nestorius, is
significant. In fact, the only names of any heretics are those of
Apollinarius and of the Arians. This shows clearly that he was
concerned with the doctrine as such, because the Council itself
was already discarded and did not come to his consideration for
acceptance or rejection. It is worth noting that this confirms what
we said at the end of the previous chapter.

The one question that we find difficult to answer is this: Was
Mandakuni refuting the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon
having before him the text of Leo’s Tome or the Chalcedonian

DOCTRINAL BACKGROUND

195

Definition? Tallon, as we already mentioned, tries to show that
there are similarities between certain aspects of the doctrine re-
futed in the Demonstration and certain passages of Leo’s Tome. 1
There can be one objection to his suggestion. The expressions
which he singles out could equally be taken as characteristic ex-
pressions of Antiochene christology in general. Secondly, how
are we to explain Mandakuni’s direct use of the Tome? Was this
latter sent to the Armenian Church? How did he know it? One
cannot find any reference to it in the literature of the fifth cen-
tury. With these points in mind it seems more likely that Man-
dakuni knew the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon through
the work of Tim othy Aelurus, which was translated in the years
between 480 and 484, just at the time when he was the Catholicos
of the Armenian Church.

Finally, it is necessary to note that the anti-Chalcedonian atti-
tude of these documents was not arrived at suddenly. In other
words, it was not the result of a particular event such as the trans-
lation of Timothy’s Refutation. Rather it was the natural conse-
quence of a traditional theological relationship with the thought of
the Cappadocian Fathers which served them as a very general
background. The major factor in shaping that christological atti-
tude in a definite form was the translation of the Church Fathers
such as Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers themselves, and Cyril
of Alexandria. The movement of translation, as we know, had
started earlier than 430 and continued throughout the century.
The names of the Church Fathers just mentioned correspond to
those given by P'arpeci. 2 Especially after the campaign against the
writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the strong opposition
to Nestorianism, the Armenian Church had resolutely adhered to
the Cyrilline christology which became the basic principle of the
Armenian position in the whole doctrinal controversy that pre-
ceded and followed the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.

These documents are the first-fruits of that decisive process.

1 See Lirre desLettres, pp. 107, n. 1; 109, n. 2; no-n, n. 9; 112, n. 1 ; 119, n. 2;
particularly pp . 122-3, n. 9 ; 127, n. 5 ; 1 3 5 .

2 See above, p. 157.

THE REJECTION OF
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

The basic idea which we have constandy had in mind in attempt-
ing this investigation into the historical and doctrinal situation of
the Armenian Church has been that the rejection of the Council of
Chalcedon was not an event in the sense of a single, clear-cut
action, but rather a process which passed through preliminary
stages and came to a definite conclusion towards the end of the
first decade of the sixth century.

Therefore, having studied, in the preceding chapters, those pre-
liminary stages, we now come to see the point which the process
reached and the kind of attitude that was taken by the Armenian
Church at this juncture. For obviously it was at the beginning of
the sixth century that the most decisive step was taken. In other
words, it was at this time that the corner-stone of the Armenian
Church’s position regarding the Council of Chalcedon was laid.

In the Introduction to this study a sketch was given of both the
traditional and recent critical views concerning the rejection of
the Council of Chalcedon. We have already shown how, with the
publication of the Book of Letters, the transition from the tradi-
tional view to the modem critical interpretation took place. 1 We
need not enter into the details of the general discussion which
followed. The important views have already been outlined and
reference will be made to them in the exposition of the Armenian
attitude which is under study in this chapter.

Now, we examine afresh the two documents in question 1 and

1 See above, pp. 6-18. 2 See B.L., pp. 41-51.

196

197

REJECTION OF CHALCEDON

try to see their historical and theological significance for our un-
derstanding of the Armenian Church’s position regarding the
Council of Chalcedon.

i. Letter from the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia
Under this title we have a letter which is addressed to “all the
bishops, ‘ chorepiscopoi’ , priests, deacons, anchorites, lay people,
nobles, chiefs of villages, seniors and juniors, and to all the faith-
ful of Persia who are under the reign of Kawad, King of Kings ”. 1
In a second passage we have the list of those people in whose
names this letter was written. Thus, we read that the letter was sent
by Babgen, "the Armenian Archbishop 2 3 of Armenia Major” and
twenty bishops of various provinces of Armenia — all of them
mentioned by name and by diocese-* — and priests, monks, anchor-
ites, princes — fourteen of them mentioned by name and province.
As the letter resumes at the end: "From the [Armenian] bishops,
priests, monks, nobles, and peasants to your orthodox saintliness;
rejoice in Christ’s love ”. 4
What does this letter tell us ?

After these long passages, Catholicos Babgen immediately gives
the reason for his writing. He says :

In the eighteenth year of Kawad, King of Kings, when I, Babgen,
the Archbishop of the Armenians and the bishops, monks and nax-
arars were assembled together in the province of Ayrarat, in the city
of Dowin, the capital of Armenia, some people came to us who said
they were from your country (lit. “from those parts or regions”),

1 B.L., p. 41. But before coining to this general address, there is a long list of
persons and places mentioned by name. When one compares these names with
the names of the persons and places mentioned in the Synodicon Orientate (see
pp. 301-17) the resemblance becomes obvious. Some of these have already been
identified by Ter-Minasean? (see Arm. Kirche, p. 32-3, Arm. ed., pp. 71-3). Others
are not difficult to identify. We have no space here to attempt this, nor is it directly
necessary for our immediate purpose.

2 The Armenian word is ehiskobosabet, which literally means “Chief of the
Bishops”.

3 It is worth noting that almost all parts of Armenia were represented in this
Council. Most of the dioceses were situated in the south.

4 B.L., p. 42.

I98 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

[that is to say] from Tisbon (Ctesiphon), from Garmikan, 1 and from
the province of Vehrartahr, 2 they told us precisely their names and
the places of their inhabitance: Samuel (Samuel), priest of the mon-
astery of Maharjan in the province of Karmikan, Smawon (Simon),
a priest of Berdosma, 3 the priest Axa of Perozsapuh, 4 the city of
the Turcs (“Tackac”) in the province of Vehartasir, and Mara the
scribe and their other colleagues. Standing in front of the whole
assembly they had a letter (i.e. a writing) in their hands by which
they confessed the right faith; they had put themselves to great
efforts to find the true and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 5

These people having received permission from Kawad had come
to the Armenians with a definite purpose: to assure themselves
and their opponents that their faith was the same as that held by
the Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, and Albanians. 6

What was the particular issue which impelled them to come to
the Armenians? The letter gives a straightforward answer. It
says:

They (i.e. the delegates) gave the reason for their coming to us by
saying: “We are subjects of Kawad, the King of Kings; we do con-
tinuously and earnestly ask God to grant him and all who are under
his authority health, peace, long life and every good thing like these.
The faith that we have is the true [faith] of the ancient Fathers, the
three hundred and eighteen, who assembled in Nicaea in the time of
the reign of the blessed Constantine; which faith the whole world
did accept and upon which the holy, catholic, and universal Church
was built, and which in the beginning was even proclaimed (lit.
“taught") by the words of the Lord: “Go therefore and make dis-
ciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28.19). This [testimony] was

1 Beit-Garmai or Garamee, situated in the north-west of Persia. See Levenq,
Beth Garmai, col. 1230-3. See Map 2.

1 Beit-Ardasir, commonly known as Seleucia, situated near Ctesiphon. See
Map 2.

3 Berdo/may. This is the corrupted form of Beit-Arsam (Bed-Arsam). Here we
have a reference to a very important figure of the Syro-Persian Monophysite
Church, Simon ofBeit-Arhm. See Additions} Note 12.

4 A city on the Euphrates situated in the west of Beit-Ardasir. See Map 2.

5 B.L., pp. 42-3. 6 SeeB.L., p. 43.

199

REJECTION OF CHALCEDON

put as a high and mighty seal on everything [in Christian doctrine].
This faith was held in concord by our country and there appeared
in it no impurity at all until the twenty-seventh year of the reign of
Peroz . 1 But at that time the evil leaven which was hidden within un-
holy people appeared. [These unholy people] began to trouble the
pure faith of the true Trinity and deceive inconstant people by fleshly
desires. [Therefore] discord reigned and many fell sick with unbear-
able diseases. Even the leaders of this blasphemous heresy held coun-
cils in various places, sometimes in Gowntsapuh 2 and sometimes in
Mesopotamia 3 (lit. “Assyria”). [Thus] Acacius, Barsauma, Mam,
Yohanan, Paul, Mika , 4 and others in communion with them joined
their voices to the teachings and impieties of Nestorius, Diodore, and
Theodore . 5 They endeavoured [to accuse] us before the princes and
the judges and [cause] us much trouble and bring perils upon us and
upon all the orthodox of our country. And we not being able to bear
such an evil, insupportable and bitter blasphemy, went to the king to
prove [our innocence]. We came also to you being impelled by the
same danger and trouble in order to find help by the witness of the
divine Scriptures so that the traditions and prescriptions of the Holy
Fathers might stand firm and immovable and that bodily and spir-
itual afflictions might not torment us every day because of doubts
about these things . 6

Having become aware of these troubles and also having seen
the written documents containing their faith, the Armenian Cath-
olicos with his bishops praises the spirit of endurance which the

1 457+ 27 = a.d. 484, the date ofBarsauma’s council.

2 The other name more commonly used for this place is Beit-Lapat, situated
in the north-east of Ctesiphon. See Lantschoot, Beth-Lapat, col. 1233-5, and
Map 2. It was here that Barsauma held his famous council of 484.

3 It refers to the western regions of the Persian empire where Syriac-speaking
Christianity was most influential. We know that two councils were held in this
part: the first by Acacius in 486 and the second by Babai in 497, both in Beit-
Aramayein Seleucia.

4 All these names except that of Mani appear in the Acts of the Councils of
Acacius and Babai. (See Chabot, Synodicon Orientate, pp. 301, 306-7, 310-11,
3IS-I7-)

5 The word is T'eodoroti (= “Theodoroti”) which can be taken as referring to
Theodoret. But it seems more likely to signify Theodore of Mopsuestia. Later in
this same letter, as we shall see, Theodoret also is denounced, together with Theo-
dore.

6 B.L., pp. 43-4.

200 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Persian orthodox (i.e. Monophysite) Christians had shown so
admirably. Then he says that the Nicene creed is the basis of the
true faith. The Armenian Church accepts the doctrine of the
Council of Nicaea, in which Aristakes, St Gregory’s son and suc-
cessor, took part and brought the Creed and canons to his own
Church. He quotes the creed to show that therein lies the foun-
dation of the orthodox faith. No definition of faith other than
this canon or rule can be accepted. This is the faith that the
Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, and Albanians have in common. 1

Then he condemns the Nestorians in the following passage
which I translate in toto :

But as Samuel the monk and Simon the priest and their companions, ,
the brethren whom you sent, told us that Babe, the Catholicos of
Assyria 2 and the other bishops who are Nestorians, teach that God
(i.e. the Word) was two sons: the one, God, the Word, equal to the
Father, who descended from the heaven, and the other, Jesus,
mortal man like us, who was bom of Mary and who because of his
becoming more righteous than any other man, was honoured and by
grace called “Son of God”, [thus being] only by name and not
[truly] Son of God and equal to the Father. He was man created
mortal like us; and because the Holy Spirit helped him he was able
to defeat the Satan and overcome the desires (i.e. the passions) and
because of his righteousness and because of his good works he was
worthy of the grace and became the temple of the Word of God
Again they assert that it is right to separate and to say openly per-
fect God and perfect man, that is to say, the perfect God took the
perfect man, Jesus Christ; and because he (i.e. the Word) loved him
(i.e. the man), he made him worthy to be honoured with him in
adoration; and [thus] the man who received the grace was honoured
and wrought miracles and wonders by the Word of God who des-
cended from the heaven and dwelt in him, that is to say, in Jesus, and
the wonders which he did were multiplied in him. All the sufferings
and the humility he endured in himself and was found mortal like

« SeeB.L., pp. 44-5.

* It refers to Babal, the Catholicos of the Persian Church (497-502). Here we
have a more explicit and direct indication to Babai’s attempts at consolidating
Nestorianism and fighting the Monophysite elements in the Persian Church. The
council of 497 was a landmark in that direction.

REJECTION OF CHALCEDON

201

us [because] being of man’s generation he was equal to us ; [he was]
son of God [only] by the Word of God.

Still they say that the voice which came from the heaven, “This is
my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3.17), was
not for Jesus but for the Word of God who is equal to the Father and
who came from heaven and dwelt in him.

Again they say that when he entered the upper room, where the
disciples were gathered together, the doors were not closed, but the
disciples had left them open because of their fear of the Jews.

The heretics again say that Jesus Christ was mortal man created
equal to us and neither descended from nor ascended to the heavens,
but he was like Elijah and Enoch who were taken into the air and
have not yet seen God and never will see him until the resurrection.

These the Nestorians say against us taking their strength from the
writings of Diodore, Theodore, Nestorius, Theodoret, and Ibas.
Acacius, Barsauma, Mani, and Paul 1 and their colleagues set this
[teachmg] as the rule [of faith]. And they say that the Greeks, the
Armenians, the Georgians, and the Albanians have the same rule of
faith as we have.

We heard these things from these people (i.e. the delegates) as
being what the Nestorians say. z

Now comes the answer to the request of the Persian Christians.

It is indeed, very short, formal, categorical:

As you wished to learn from us about these things, we signify to you
that we the Greeks, the Armenians, the Georgians, and the Alban-
ians did never accept and will never accept these blasphemies. We
do not believe [in them] and do not communicate with [the people]
who say and teach such, but we anathematize them as Paul the Apos-
tle said: “If any one should preach to you more than we preached
to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1.8). The same [faith] was affirmed
by the three hundred and eighteen blessed Fathers of the Council of
Nicaea, themselves being filled with the divine grace. To the same
rule of faith adhered the hundred and fifty orthodox bishops who
were assembled in Constantinople for the same issue and with whom
we accord and anathematize the opponents of that true faith and
perfect, God-given canon. 3

1 See above, p. 199, n. 4.

2 B.L., pp. 45-6.

3 B.L., p. 46.

202 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

In the last passage Catholicos Babgen tells the Persian Christians
that this letter was sealed by him together with the bishops and
the princes of Armenia. As Sergis, otherwise known as Babgen, a
man from Sostri 1 in Xuzistan asked for a special letter on faith in
order to use it for silencing the heretics in his own country, Cath-
olicos Babgen wrote a letter on the faith in Armenian and in Per-
sian. He, together with his bishops and Vard Mamikonean — the
Marzban — together with the princes, scaled it with their rings.
Samuel and Simon took it and gave a copy to Sergis and took
this letter to their country . 2

2. “Letter from the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia”

This letter with the same title as the previous letter, immediately
follows this latter in the Book of Letters. It is more directly con-
nected with the central theme of our study. Therefore we must
look at it very closely. Here, again, Catholicos Babgen and Mer-
sapuh, bishop ofTaron, 3 andtheotherbishopsofthe various prov-
inces of Armenia together with Vard Mamikonean and other
princes 4 and all the nobles address this letter to their “beloved
brethren, orthodox and faithful servants of God, the diocesan
bishops, monks, and people [of Persia] ”. 5

They wrote this letter because, as they themselves say, the
priest Simon 6 came a second time to Armenia and informed them
that the issues were not settled and that the opponents of the
orthodox faith did not accept the letters from the orthodox 7 and

1 East of Ctesiphon, known as Shoshder or Schouster in the province of Houz-
istan (see Map z). This passage seems to be a little confused. For the first time the
name of Sergis comes in and I have been unable to identify him. However, this
shows that there were people among the delegates from the parts east of Ctesi-
phon.

2 SeeBX., p. 47.

3 Taron was a very influential province in South Armenia. The bishop of Taron
apparently had the status of a senior bishop. In fact, the name of Mersapuh appears
first in the list of the bishops in the previous letter as well. (SeeB.L., p. 41).

* Only two of them are mentioned by name. 5 13 . L., p. 48.

5 The same person, Simon of Beit-Arsam, as mentioned in the first letter.

1 In fact Simon of Beit-Arsam had obtained many letters from the Mono-

physite Church leaders as Barhibraeus tells us. (See Additional Note 12.)

REJECTION OF CHAtCEDON

203

even rejected their (i.e. “the Armenians’ ”) letter; on the contrary,
those opponents, the Nestorians, renewed their attacks and once
more troubled the holy Church this time “ being strengthened by
the Council of Chakedon” , l

These heretics actually “derive [their teaching] on the Holy
Trinity from Nestorius, the evil-thinker; they divide the Incar-
nation (lit. “the becoming flesh’’) of the Lord from the holy
Virgin Mary ”, Christ was indeed

truly man and at the same time God, as we (Babgen and his bishops)
confess and worship [him], [i.e.] the fleshness (i.e. manhood) 2 to-
gether with the Godhead and the Godhead together with the flesh-
ness; we confess according to that same tradition which we received
from the holy Council of Nicaea, from the 318 bishops and adhere
to the meaning of the canons set up by them, because in fact, they are
true smce they arc [formulated] through the divine co-operation.
We flee from and deny the false teaching (lit. “ the lies ”) of Nestorius
and of others like him [which teaching was confirmed] in Chalce-
don; 3 we know these people as having departed [only] feignedly
from both the Gentile and Jewish errors, for they confess the same
Gentile and Jewish doctrines and seduce into error the minds of the
innocents, that is to say, of the ignorant; they make the blind deviate
from the road; their reward was assigned by the Holy Spirit through
the prophet. 4 The holy Fathers by their unanimity in Nicaea openly
broke off the line of their (i.e. the heretics’) evil teaching; they anath-
ematized by [the power of] the Holy Scriptures Nestorius, Arius,
Diodore, Theodoret (Theodore ?), Eutyches, Paul of Samosata, and
all those who are like these, [for] these taught Christ’s becoming
man as being a confusion or that [he was] solely man and not perfect
God in perfect flesh. 5

Here they mention two people, the “great Ampelis”, bishop of
the city of ICerson (=Cherson), “a lover and a minister of the
true faith”, and Anatolis of Constantinople, 6 “a devout priest”.

1 B.L., p. 48. 2 marmnaworut'iwn— “ corporeality ”.

3 For the supreme importance of this phrase, i quote here the Armenian text:
P'axc'imk' urafeal z’i K'alkedonin stut'ium Nestori ew aylocn nmnnif.

♦ Perhaps he refers to Isa. 59. 1 o. 5 B.L. , pp. 48-9.

6 For the identification of these two people see Additional Note 1 3 .

204 COUNCIL OF CHALCBDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

We are told that Ampeiis wrote on the Incarnation 1 and added to
his writing the Twelve Chapters ( Kephala ) of Cyril and the letter
of the blessed Zeno (the Henoticon). Anatolis also confirmed these
writings and taught that there was no addition to the Holy Trin-
ity and that he who was bom of the Virgin was God the Word,
who is always glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Then they repeat again that the true faith is the tradition of the
318 bishops, which tradition was confirmed by the 150 bishops
(i.e. of the Council of Constantinople). They denounce those who
do not hold steadfast to this tradition but instead follow alien opin-
ions and talk nonsense. They liken them to the people whom the
Apostle describes as “fruitless trees . . . uprooted” (see Jude 12).
In fact “those who do not confess the Son deny also the Father”
(see 1 John 2.23). They urge their readers to follow the Apostle’s
prescription. 2 There follows a brief statement of the orthodox
faith, made in confessional terms, similar to those of the creeds. It
was that faith which was given to them by the 318 bishops of
Nicaea and by the bishops of Ephesus. 3

Here they become more explicit about their doctrinal position,
because they mention by name the heretics whom they anathe-
matize and the Holy Fathers whom they follow. The heretics are :
Nestorius, Arius, Theodore, Diodore, Theodoret, Eutyches, Paul
of Samosata, Ibas, Acacius, Barsauma and Babai. The Holy
Fathers are: Ignatius (of Antioch), Athanasius, Basil of Cappa-
docia, Gregory the Great (Nazianzen), and the two other homony-
mous Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Neocaesarea,
Julius (of Rome), “the guide of the way of life for the westerns”,
Ambrosius, John (Chrysostom), Atticus (of Constantinople),

1 Although the letter does not say clearly what he did write on, it is obvious
that he wrote on the Incarnation, namely on the doctrine of Christ’s person and
nature.

2 See 2 John 10. k

3 To our knowledge, this is the first time that the Council of Ephesus is men-
tioned in Armenian theological literature in an official context. In fact, here, in
this document, the first three Ecumenical Councils are mentioned together. They
were recognized by the Armenian Church as the basis of orthodoxy and have re-
mained so until to-day.

205

REJECTION OF CHALCEDON

Theophilus (of Alexandria), Cyril, Proclus, and Aristakes, the
son of St Gregory the Illuminator . 1

We have the faith [of these Fathers] which we already have written
to you together with the Georgians and Albanians in each nation’s
own language. Now we confirm the same and send it through our
brother in the common faith, Simeon the zealous priest, so that no
one dare contradict and oppose it for our sake . 2

The concluding passage is an exhortation to the faithful not
to be shaken or scandalized by the heretics who still repudiate the
right doctrine. Let God judge and condemn them. They tell their
readers that they have ordered copies to be made of the letter of
Ampelis and that of Anatolis the priest, presumably for their in-
struction. The letter ends with the following advice: “If any one
of the heretics comes and turns to our holy faith, it is right to
accept him, because the door of God’s mercy is always open for
those who are both confessors and penitents. ” 3

There are two points which must be taken as preliminary con-
siderations before attempting to draw conclusions on the doc-
trinal position of the Armenian Church at this stage. The first is
that in these two documents we have an official declaration and,
therefore, a most important piece of evidence as far as the doc-
trinal orientation of the Armenian Church is concerned. Here we
have a conciliar act, a decision taken by the supreme authority of
the Armenian Church in its spiritual and national aspects. The
Catholicos with his bishops and the Marzban with other feudal
princes act together . 4 Secondly, the two letters are closely linked

1 It is highly significant to note again the closeness of this list of Church Fathers

to that of the Fathers quoted in Timothy Aelurus’ Refutation.

z B.L., p. 51. 3 Ibid.

* It is worth while mentioning that the participation of the secular authority is
the expression of the participation of the laity in the work of the Church. In fact,
this participation of the laity has been a permanent feature and a very character-
istic mark of the Armenian Church authority and activity throughout its history.
It has taken various shapes according to the particular social systems of the life of
the Armenian people in different periods of history. But the basic principle and
its constant application have always had their place in the life of the Church.

206 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

with each other and they have to be considered together. The
second letter, in particular, cannot be understood unless it is
linked with the first. In fact, the two represent the two successive
phases or moments of the one action.

Now, from the first letter we learn that the Armenian Catho-
licos and bishops, together with the feudal princes, were assem-
bled in a council at Dowin, when Christians from the Persian
Empire came and asked for their intervention in the doctrinal
disputes of their own country. Then, the first question that arises
is this: What w r as the purpose of that Council? Was it convened
for doctrinal reasons ?

The documents themselves tell us practically nothing about the
council as such. We do not find much help in later documents
either. Only in the second letter is there a reference to the partici-
pation of the Georgians and Albanians in this council. This refer-
ence is confirmed by a document of the seventh century.
Abraham, Catholicos of the Armenians (607-15), writing to
Kiwrion, Catholicos of the Georgians, 1 reminds him of Babgen’s
council in which, he says, Gabriel the Catholicos of the Georgians
with his bishops took part and condemned the Council of Chalce-
don and the Tome of Leo. He even gives the list of those Georgian
bishops who, with Gabriel, were present at the Council. Therefore,
we must consider the council of Babgen as an important one and
in all probability directly connected with the doctrinal issues of
the time.

Ormanean suggests that this council was one of the ordinary,
regular councils of the Armenian Church which were held from
time to time for the purpose of reviewing the work of the Church
and meeting the various needs of the people, in the constantly
changing circumstances of Armenian history. 2 Ter-Minaseanc
supposes that the council was convened for the acceptance of the

1 It was this Catholicos who accepted the Council of Chalcedon and conse-
quently the Georgian Church broke away from the Armenian in the seventh cen-
tury. (See for details Akinean, Kiwrion ; Ormanean, Azgapatum, col. 625-37;
Tamarati, £glise Ceorgienne, pp. 239-44 ; Gouhert, Ceorgie, pp. 119-27.)

- See Azgapatum, col. 502.

REJECTION OF CHALCEDON

207

Henoticon and for other internal ecclesiastical problems. 1 It is in-
deed probable that the Henoticon was considered and perhaps
served as the basis for the doctrinal policy of the Armenian
Church, but our documents do not give us a sufficient reason to
assume that the council was held specifically for the acceptance
of the Henoticon . 2 We think that this council had some direct
connection with the doctrinal problems of the time in general. In
other words, it was not simply one of the so-called regular or
periodical councils convened for general purposes or intended to
deal with the internal affairs of the Church. The participation of
the Georgians and Albanians makes it more convincing that there
were some issues which had to be faced in common. For the
Georgian and Albanian Churches had been and still were in the
closest relationship with the Armenian Church. This latter occu-
pied a central position in that part of the world, as these letters
themselves show.

Let us then look at the general political and ecclesiastical situ-
ation of the time.

The eighteenth year of Kawad’s reign was a.d. 506. Therefore,
the council of Babgen was held in 506 at Do win. The war which
had started between Kawad and Anastasius ended in 505/6. 3
Hostilities thus ended for a while, the Christians in the Persian
Empire had greater liberty and this time the Monophysites were
apparently being favoured. Anastasius, on his part, had supported
“la propagande monophysite dans les provinces orientales et
meme au dela des frontieres de 1* empire”. 4

1 Sec/frm. Kirche, p. 30 (Arm. ed., p. 72).

2 The only positive proof for supposing that the Henoticon was taken into con-
sideration is provided fay Simon of Beit-Arsam. He says: “Quam denique seq-
uunter modo, raeamque habent triginta ac tres Episcopi regionis Gurzan, cum
Regibus et Magnatibus suis: nec non triginta ac duo Episcopi majoris Armeniae
Persarum, cum Marzabanis suis : et cum reliquis Orthodoxis Episcopis et christ-
ianis Regibus, a Constantino fideli Imperatore usque ad Anastasium Caesarem.”
(See Assemani, Bibl. Orient, vol. i, p. 355.)

3 See Brehier, Anastase, col. 1451; cf Christensen, Iran Sassanide, pp. 345-54;
Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. ii, pp. 10-15; Stein, Bas-Emp:re, pp. 92-101; but
particularly Charanis, Anastasius, pp. 29-3 1 .

4 Brehier, Anastase, col. 1454.

208 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

This was a move which carried the expansion of Monophys-
itism a step further than the point which Zeno’s Henoticon had
reached. We have already noted that Barsauma and Acacius had
opposed the Henoticon very strongly. After the councils of 484 and
486, a third was held in 497 under the Catholicos Babai. Although
the important issue was the marriage of the clergy, yet the coun-
cils of 484 and 486 were confirmed. 1 This council was held by the
permission of Zamasp (496-8/9) who had occupied the throne
through a coup d’etat against his brother Kawad. 2 After the short
reign of Zamasp, Kawad came back to power. The Monophysites
seem to have been favoured by him for some time.

The situation of the Persian Church during the years between
484 and 506 was a troubled one. It was a time when Monophys-
ites and Nestorians were continuously fighting each other. The
echo of this struggle is clearly reflected in the council of Baba'i
(497). In the acts of this council we read that two bishops, Papa of
Beit-Lapat 3 and Yazdad of Rew-Ardasir, stood in opposition to
the orthodox doctrine (i.e. Nestorianism) and refused to appear
before the council. Here, measures were taken to punish them for
having declined the summons of the council. 4 The persecution of
the Monophysites had been carried to such an extent that even
the Emperor Anastasius intervened. 5 Now, it seems that after the
war between Persia and Byzantium had ended, the Monophysites
enjoyed comparative peace and found opportunity to strengthen
their position by showing to King Kawad that their faith, which
was opposed by the Nestorians, was the true one, because it was
held equally by the Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, and Alban-
ians. The year 506 was a time when the Armenians also had to
take an official attitude towards the growing danger of Nes-
torianism. They could not wait very long, since the issues were

1 See Chabot, Synodicon Orientate, p. 312; cf Scher, Histoire Nestorienne, vol. ii,
pp. 128-30.

2 See Christensen, Iran Sassanide, p. 347; cf Labourt, Christ. Perse, p. 155.

3 He had been a student of the great Monophysite polemist, Philoxcnos of
Mabboug. (See Labourt, Christ. Perse, p. 157; cf Tisserant, Nestorienne, col. 178.)

, See Chabot, Synodicon Orientate, p. 314.

5 See Charanis, Anastasius, p. 29.

209

REJECTION OF CHALCEDON

becoming more and more acute. With peace restored between
their two neighbours, they found a favourable time for such an
action.

In the context of this general situation the first letter of
the Armenians can be better understood. Thus, when we read
the complaints which the Syro-Persian delegates put before the
Armenians at the council of Babgen, we see in them a direct
connection with the situation which we have just outlined. For
example, the delegates say that “the evil leaven appeared in the
twenty-seventh year of Peroz’s reign” and that the leaders of their
opponents “held councils in various places”. Again, they say that
in these councils the teaching of Nestorius, Diodore, and Theo-
dore was confirmed. They even give the names of Barsauma,
Acacius, Baba'i, and other bishops. All these point directly to the
situation described above.

It is very reasonable to think that Simon of Beit-Arsam and
his companions already knew that the Armenians, Georgians,
and Albanians were assembled in council. It was not by sheer
accident that their mission coincided with the convention of a
council in Armenia. And as there are no canons left by that
council , 1 it becomes more difficult to think that this was one of the
supposed periodical councils of the Armenian Church. It must
have been convened, then, for doctrinal reasons. The cause or the
reason was, with all probability, the conflict between Mono-
physitism and Nestorianism. The peaceful time which followed
the settlement of the war between Persia and Byzantium pro-
vided them with the conditions necessary for such an important
council. As the Armenians since the Council of Ephesus were bit-
terly opposed to Nestorianism amd favoured the Monophysite
(Cyrilline) christology, at the same time adhering tacitly to the
position of the Hetioticon, it was not difficult for a Simon of Beit-
Arsam — a man devoted to the cause of Monophysitism — or for
the Monophysite Syro-Persian Christians in general, to be aware
of such a council and to ask its intervention in the disputes of their
own Church.

1 See MelikYangean, Canon Law, pp. 356-65, particularly p. 358.

210 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

It is highly significant to note that these delegates informed the
council that they had received permission from Kawad to come to
Armenia. Secondly, wc read in the closing paragraph of the first
letter that Babgen wrote this letter in Armenian and in Persian
and sealed it. Now, as the ecclesiastical language of these Christians
was Syriac, it seems that the letter was written also in Persian for
the purpose of presenting it to Kawad as a proof of their ortho-
doxy . 1

We conclude from these observations that in this letter we have
the first official, more precisely, conciliar act of the Armenian
Church concerning the doctrine of Christ’s person seen in the
post-Chalcedonian polemical context of its exposition. The posi-
tion of the Armenian Church is clear : It is anti-dyophysite in its
basic principle and anti-Nestorian in its outward expression.

There is no difficulty at all in understanding and estimating this
position. The christological milieu of the time explains it straight-
forwardly. As we said, at this council the Armenians faced a con-
flict between Monophysitism and Dyophysitism. The latter came
to their consideration under the form of Nestorianism. They had
already opposed it in its Chalcedonian expression as the analysis
of the treatises of Xorenaci and Mandakuni has shown. The
Council of Chalcedon as such was not yet brought into the arena.
Now it appears in the second letter. The position expressed in this
letter was, in fact, the natural consequence or the reasonable ex-
tension of the attitude expressed in the first.

What do we learn from it? First, we arc told that Simon of
Beit-Arsam came a second time and told Babgen, the Armenian
Catholicos, that the opponents of the orthodox faith (i.e. the Nes-
torians) did not accept his letter. On the contrary, they renewed
their attacks, this time “ being strengthened by the Council of Chalce-
don”.

What does this expression exactly mean ? The immediate answer
would be that the Nestorians continued their fight against the
Monophysites by claiming that the Council of Chalcedon

1 The accounts of Simon’s work as given by Barhebraeus and Michael Syrus
support this supposition very firmly indeed. See Additional Note 12.

REJECTION OF CHALCEDON 211

approved their own teaching. In connection with this letter, we
must add that this claim of the Nestorians had a particular reason.
As the Armenian Catholicos in his letter was saying that the
Greeks, the Armenians, the Georgians, and the Albanians had the
same faith, presumably these Nestorians challenged that argu-
ment by saying that the Greeks had their own faith and therefore
brought forth the Council of Chalcedon as a proof. However, it is
clear that for one reason or another, according to the evidence of
this second letter, Nestorians also regarded the Council of Chalce-
don as having approved their doctrine and strengthened their
position.

Now, when this case was made known to Babgen by the official
representative, Simon of Beit-Arsam, he then clarified the pos-
ition of his Church as expressed in the first letter by adding in this
one the following words: “We flee from and deny the false teach-
ing of Nestorius and of others like him [which doctrine was con-
firmed] in Chalcedon.” Secondly, he added the name of Eutyches
to the list of the heretics. We must note that this is very important
for understanding the theological attitude of the Armenian
Church. It is clear that right from the beginning the repudia-
tion of the Council of Chalcedon did not mean the acceptance
of the teaching of Eutyches. We may remember that P'arpeci
also had anathematized Eutyches towards the end of the fifth
century . 1

Here we have, then, the first instance in which the Armenian
Catholicos together with his bishops and the secular heads of his
country, rejected the Council of Chalcedon.

For us there is no difficulty in understanding this action in its
full meaning. From what we have said in the previous chapters
it follow:- that such a decision would be only natural. The way of
Armenian ecclesiastical life and theological tradition was already
leading to this end, which would have been reached sooner or
later. The second delegation of Simon of Beit-Arsam only pro-
vided the occasion for making that decision. It w'as not the cause,
as some scholars have contended . 2

1 See above, p. ij6.

z See Additional Note 14.

212 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

However, it is important to note that purely on theological
grounds we have in this second letter no adequate or complete
exposition of the christological doctrine of the Armenian Church.
There is not much said in the first letter either. Therefore, it is not
possible to expound the purely theological attitude of the Ar-
menian Church in a systematic form or to represent its christology
in more detail. We think that the christology of the two treatises
which we studied in the previous chapter is quite representative
of the theological attitude of Babgen’s council as well. Perhaps
we may point out certain aspects of the contents of these two
documents which provide us with some clear indications for
an adequate understanding of that theological attitude. These
points are :

(a) A strong emphasis on the sufficiency of the Council of
Nicaea, which had a supreme authority for all Monophysites.

(b) Acceptance of three Ecumenical councils,

( c ) An unyielding opposition to the Antiochene or the Nes-
torian theologians.

(d) Above all, appropriation of Cyril’s christological teaching
as embodied in the Tivelve Anathematisms , accompanied by an
adherence to Zeno’s Henoticon.

(e) An explicit rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.

Surely we must suppose that some time elapsed between the
first and the second delegations of Simon of Beit-Arsam. There-
fore the second letter must have been written one or two years
after the Council of Dowin (506). Was there a second council for
this letter? We do not know. However, it is obvious that the de-
cision was made as a sequel to the first letter. In this second letter
appear the names of the senior bishop, Mersapuh of Taron, and
of the Marzban, Vard Mamikonean. Both of them had been
prominent figures in the Council of Dowin. Therefore this de-
cision must be considered as an integral part of the work of the
Council of Dowin. In fact, in this second letter we have an ex-
tension of the doctrinal position as expressed in the first letter.

REJECTION OF CHAECEDON 213

This time the Council of Chalcedon was openly condemned, be-
cause it had become directly involved in the controversy. There-
fore we conclude that in the Council of Dowin (506/8) there is the
first official and formal rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by
the Armenian Church.

EPILOGUE

LOOKING FORWARD

Some Conclusions and
Considerations

The decision that was taken in the Council of Dowin in 506/8
under the circumstances which were described in the last chapter,
was a beginning and not an end. It was the first step which
engaged the Armenian Church in a continuous and strenuous
process of doctrinal disputes, ecclesiastical quarrels, and political
entanglements of the most difficult and complicated nature. As I
have already shown in the Introduction, the Chalcedonian prob-
lem became a decisive factor in the whole course of the subsequent
history of the Church of Armenia.

Several councils held in Dowin and elsewhere dealt with the
same problem in different conditions. The problem itself under-
went considerable changes as a result of the development of
christological doctrine in the sixth century. New aspects and new
ideas emerged and deeply affected theological tradition and eccle-
siastical relationships in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries.

Thus, in the middle of the sixth century, just at the time when
the Chalcedonian problem was still occupying the mind of the
Byzantine Empire, particularly under the reign of Justinian
(527-65), the Armenians once more rejected the Council of
Chalcedon, again in relation to Nestorianism.

In fact, Nerses of Bagrevand (548-57), while answering an
official letter addressed to him by the Syrian Christians in the
Persian Empire, and after having consecrated their bishop in the
person of Abdisoy, tells them that their faith is in accord with

214

EPILOGUE

215

the faith of the Church of Armenia and that his Church also anathe-
matizes Nestorius, Diodore (ofTarsus), Theodore (ofMopsuestia),
Barsauma, Theodoret (of Cyrus), the Council of Chalcedon, the
Tome of Leo, Apollinarius, Eutyches, and Severus (of Antioch)
and his corrupt writings. 1

If the mention of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo marks a
mere reaffirmation of the position of the Armenian Church as
adopted in the Council of Do win (506/8), the inclusion of the
name of Severus in the list of heretics brings a new element of
great significance for the history of the relationship between the
Armenian and Syrian Churches and, particularly, for the under-
standing of the doctrinal developments of the christological posi-
tion of the Armenian Church.

This new element assumes a greater significance when we
realize that the condemnation of Severus is frequently mentioned
throughout the sixth century. Even in the beginning of the
seventh century, at the time of the controversy between the
Armenian and Georgian Churches, we find the name of Severus
mentioned again in the list of heretics. 2 As late as in 61 6 we find
him again condemned in the famous doctrinal treatise of Catholi-
cos Komitas (6 15-28). 3

What are the implications for the Armenian Church of such
historical events and doctrinal attitudes or dispositions in relation
to doctrinal disputes in the sphere of the internal conflicts of the
“Monophysite” section of Eastern Christendom?

E. Ter-Minassiantz and K. Ter-Mkkrtschian have rendered
most valuable services in this field by opening new paths of in-
vestigation; 4 but their work has not been taken up and con-
tinued on the same scholarly lines.

1 See Book of Letters, p. 56. It is interesting to note the textual identity between
this part of the text (pp. 55-h) and a section of the letter written by the Syrians
(P- 53 ).

2 Book of Letters, p. 138; cf p. 146.

3 Book of Letters, p. 216.

4 See Ter-Minaseanc, Armen. Kirche (Armenian text) pp. 84-135. Ter-Mkrt’-
cean, Seal of Faith, Introduction, pp. lvii-cvii; cf ibid.. History of the Armenian
Church, Part I, pp. 200-5. Their interpretations of the doctrinal attitude of the

216 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

The doctrinal developments of anti-Chalcedonian theological
thinking have already drawn the attention of high-ranking
scholars — theologians and historians — such as J. Lebon and R.
Draguet . 1 But the attention that has been given to the post-
Chalcedonian period of history and theology on the Chalcedonian
side has been far deeper and greater than the study of the anti-
Chalcedonian side. The study of the controversy over the Three
Chapters and, later, of the Monothelite controversy has revealed
interesting aspects in the christological field of Christian theology.
Charles Moeller’s exhaustive study, “Le Chalcddonisme et le neo-
ChalcSdonisme eti Orient de 451 a la jin du VT sikcle” 2 has indicated
in a poignant way the importance ofpost-Chalcedonian theology
in the Byzantine tradition. On the other side, J. Lebon and R.
Draguet have opened new perspectives in the understanding of
the “Monophysite” tradition taken in its Syrian context with the
two opposite positions of Severus of Antioch and Julian of
Halicarnassus.

But the Armenian tradition has not been subjected to a deep-
searching investigation, which would indeed be a task well worth
undertaking. There is no doubt that it will be rewarding if it is
seriously attempted. Draguet is fully justified when he says in his
concluding remarks :

L’histoire litteraire et doctrinale de la diffusion du Julianisme
en Orient ferait a elle seule l’objet d’un nouveau travail; les sources
grecques et syriaques y contribueraient beaucoup; la doctrine
julianiste interessant d’une fa$on toute speciale 1 ’histoire de 1 ’Eglise
d’Armenie, il faudrait accorder une attention particuliere aux pro-
ductions de la litterature theologique armenienne . 3

Indeed, the purely theological parts of the Armenian literature
of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries include most interesting

Armenian Church with regard to Severian and Julianist christological doctrines
vary and even clash at a certain point. Whereas for Ter-Minassiantz the Ar-
menians have been completely inclined towards Julianism, for Ter-Mkkrtschian
that interpretation is an exaggeration which needs to be balanced.

1 See Bibliography. 2 See Bibliography.

i Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse, p. 260, Louvain, 1924.

EPILOGUE

217

pages concerning the later developments of the christological
doctrines held by the “Monophy sites”. I have already men-
tioned some authors in the Introduction. And, in fact, what
I have attempted to do in this present study is to take a first step
which may lead to a series of studies dealing with the sub-
sequent history and theology of the Armenian Church, a sub-
ject that has a value extending beyond the limits of a national
Church to reach an ecumenical dimension worthy of special
consideration both for historical reasons and for present-day
needs.

At this juncture, I touch upon a most delicate point: the actual
significance of this study and related investigations in the literature
and history of the post-Chalcedonian period.

At present, thanks to the spirit of open-mindedness, sincere and
fresh scholarly inquiries, and common studies aiming at a mutual
understanding as fostered by the Ecumenical Movement, the
prospect of a rapprochement between the Chalcedonian and non-
Chalcedonian Churches is returning to the minds of theologians
and Church leaders. The post-Chalcedonian centuries have shown
most convincingly that orthodoxy, as a living faith being wit-
nessed by the life of the Church, was maintained equally in both
the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian Churches. In other
words, the Christian faith was truly made manifest through such
hfe and work which never impaired nor eclipsed the teachings of
Christ. On the contrary, we realize more and more clearly how
the integrity and purity of the Christian faith was constantly
expressed through the whole sacramental life of the Church on
both sides, in the Churches which accept Chalcedon and its
formulations and in the Churches which reject the Council of
Chalcedon but have other ways of expressing the same incama-
tional faith.

I have already indicated the significance of the Chalcedonian
problem for our actual ecumenical encounter in an article which
deals with the post-Chalcedonian interpretations of Chalcedon
and with the various attempts at reconsideration and revaluation

218 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

of the Chalcedonian problem in an ecumenical perspective . 1
There is no doubt that studies of this nature and scope will con-
tribute towards the rapprochement of the two groups of Churches
of the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

History tells us most eloquently how disastrous have been the
consequences of the division of Eastern Churches because of the
Council of Chalcedon and other related factors of a non-theologi-
cal nature. Isolation has resulted in hard, staunch, exclusive,
unyielding attitudes which have led to the dislocation and the
decomposition of the Eastern Christian world and have impaired
its integrity and solidarity. Generally speaking in the past,
polemics have dominated the relationship between the two
groups of Churches. The self-defensive, self-justifying tendency
and method, with the natural implication of mutual condemna-
tion, have prevailed in the conversations that have taken place.
Fresh attempts at a deeper understanding of each other’s positions
as expressed in the post-Chalcedonian theological tradition may
greatly help us in our search for the recovery of the unity of the
Eastern Churches.

That vision constitutes one of the major factors in this study,
and that same vision must be, I believe, a driving force in all
studies which may follow along the same lines.

1 VardapetK. Sarkissian, “The Ecumenical Problem in Eastern Christendom”,
See Ecumenical Review, vol. xii, no. 4, July i960, pp. 436-54.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

As it appears from the Acts themselves, one of the most significant as-
pects of the Council was the continuously and repeatedly emphasized
association of Leo with Cyril. There are several places where this con-
stant tendency can clearly be seen, namely to identify the christo-
logical views of Cyril with those set forth in the Tome.

Not only did the letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to John of Antioch
precede the reading of the Tome, but also — and especially — in any case
of ambiguity in expression, unfamiliarity of formulation, or suspicion
of unorthdoxy in the Tome, the only authority brought for approval of
the passages concerned was always Cyril.

Thus, for example, for the three main passages in the Tome which
seemed to the bishops of Palestine and Illyricum unorthodox, the
assurance of orthodoxy came from parallel citations from Cyril. Those
passages were :

(a) “Et ad resolvendum conditionis nostrae debitum natura inviola-
bilis naturae est unita passibili, ut, quod nostris remediis congruebat,
unus atque idem mediator Dei et hominum, homo Iesus Christus, et
mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero” (Tome, sect, iii;
Bindly, Ecum. Docum., p. 169).

The assurance of the orthodoxy of this passage was found in a cita-
tion from Cyril’s letter to Nestorius: “Since his own body did, as
Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man (Heb. 2.9),
he himself is said to have suffered death in his own nature since it would
be madness to say or think this, but because, as I have just said, it was
his flesh that tasted death’’ (see Sellers, Chalcedon, p. 246).

(h) “Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod
proprium est; Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et came
exsequente quod camis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud
succumbit iniuriis” (Tome, sect, iv; Bindley, p. 170).

The parallel quotation from Cyril was brought again by Aetius,

219

220 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

the archdeacon of Constantinople, from the letter of Cyril to Acacius
of Melitene: “There are some sayings which are in the highest degree
God-befitting; others befit manhood; and others there are which, as it
were, hold a middle rank, demonstrating that the Son of God is at once
God and man” (Sellers, p. 247).

(c) “Quamvis enim in Domino Iesu Christo Dei et ho minis una
persona sit, aliud tamen est unde in utroque communis est contu-
melia, aliud unde communis est gloria. De nostro enim illi est minor
Patre humanitas; de Patre illi est aequalis cum Patte divinitas” (Tome,
sect, iv; Bindley, p. 171).

The answer to the objection to this passage was taken again from
Cyril — from his Scolia de Incarnatione — brought by Theodoret, the
staunch opponent of Cyril: “He became man and did not change his
properties, for he remained what he was ; for it is assuredly understood
that it is one thing which is dwelling in another thing, that is the divine
nature in manhood” (see Sellers, p. 248).

The question now arises: Why was Cyril thus being taken as the
reliable authority in matters of orthodox christology? The straight-
forward answer would be that Cyril was the dominant figure in Chris-
tian thought for Eastern Orthodox Christians of the time, and his
teaching had become somewhat the standard christology by which any
statement on christology had to be judged in order to meet their
understanding and find approval. Therefore, no one could disregard
him if he had to be intelligible to the Eastern theologians. In fact,
Cyril had become the highest authority, the most difficult to refute for
his opponents, and the most venerated to rely on for his supporters
(see Duchesne, Sep. Churches, pp. 23 ff; Idem, Hist. Church, vol. iii,
pp. 302-3, 308-9; Prestige, Fathers and Heretics, pp. 150 ff; Bardy,
Chalcedoine, pp. 272 ff).

What is singularly important here and which is so often overlooked
is that in the Council of Chalcedon the authority of Cyril was used as a
shield. His name was reverently mentioned, expressions from his
letters were quoted, but all that did not in fact coincide with a real, full
recognition of the ethos of his christological doctrine. In fact, the pas-
sages extracted from his letters in support of Leo’s Tome were totally
cut off from the general context of his thought. The leaders of the
Council of Chalcedon used his name and his reputation only to allay
minds disturbed or disquietened by the new language of the Tome or

ADDITIONAL NOTE I

221

to assure others of the preservation of their loyalty to the traditional
Cyrilline christology. The homage paid to Cyril at Chalcedon never
went deep enough to meet the true essence of his christology. Rather it
was a purely formal act necessitated by the circumstances, unavoidable
as they were at the time of Chalcedon ; a time when, in the words
of Evagrius, Cyril was “lauded and proclaimed to the world as the
sonorous herald and mighty champion of true doctrine” (i, 7, Eng.
tr„ p. 14).

The post-Chalcedonian history shows this more clearly. In fact, the
later attempts made towards the reconciliation of the opponents of the
Council of Chalcedon had Cyril’s thought at the centre of the things
that were taken into consideration. It was strongly felt that Chalcedon
had to be understood in terms of Cyrilline christology if it was to sur-
vive the criticisms of its opponents and secure its place in the orthodox
doctrinal formulations of the Church. The second council of Constan-
tinople is the culmination of this process. “ Aux alentours de 553, sous
peine de crime et d’apostasie, on devra admettre toute 1’ oeuvre de
Cyrille, y cotnpris sa partie la plus persotmelle et la plus discutee, les Ana-
the'matismes. Rome ignora ceux-ci jusqu’en 519; Turnon de 433 n’en
soufflait mot; le concile de Chalcedoine approuva le Cyrille de T union
de 433, en gardant un silence prudent sur l’autre aspect de la termin-
ologie du patriarche. En 533, la situation est renversee. Si la christ-
ologie s’allegea peut-etre ainsi de certaines richesses de la tradition, il
ne faut pas oublier cependant que ces Anathematismes entreront peu a
peu dans Tusage du magistere ordinaire de l’Eglise, tel qu’il se reflete
dans Tusage commun des theologiens” (Moeller, Neo-Chalcedonisme,
pp. 644-5; cf p. 647; see also Richard, Neo-Chalcedonisme, p. 158).

This is by no means a minor detail in pointing to the defective side
of the attitude of Chalcedon to the real Cyril. As Kidd has said; “It
(Chalcedon) ignored the real Cyril” (Hist. Church, vol. iii, p. 395). Or,
as Mgt Duchesne had already remarked in more explicit terms: “In
fine, Cyril, the true Cyril had been sacrificed to Leo” (Hist. Church,
p. 317). In Duchesne’s view there is no case of synthesis in Chalcedon.
Thus, after outlining the central feature of Cyril’s thought as compared
with the Dyophysite teaching of a Theodore of Mopsuestia, he con-
cludes: “A Chalcedoine on avail fait la police de la theologie ; onn’avait
pas fait Turnon des coeurs ; car les coeurs, les vrais coeurs, ne sont con-
tents que quand ils sont assouvis” (Autonomies, p. 40). Then, comment-
ing on the Roman side of the question, he adds: “Rome est le lieu du

222 COUNCIL OF CHAtCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

gouvernement, non la patrie de la theologie ou le paradis de la mys-
tique. . . . L’instrument diplomatique de Chalcedoine, lequel n’etait
d’ailleurs qu’une version grecque d’une lettre latine de saint Leon, fut
cleve a la situation de regula fidei” (ibid., p. 40). In order to complete
the presentation of Duchesne’s view we must quote him also for the
later history of Chalcedon: “Trente ans apres le concile de Chalcedoine
il lui fallut songer a faire retraite en bon ordre, a sauver sa face, comme
disent les Chinois. A cet effet fut invente l’Henotique, edit imperial
adresse aux Egyptiens, en 482; on y canonisait les formules les plus
aisees de saint Cyrille et Ton declarait repudier tout ce qui avait pu se
dire ou se faire en sens contraire, a Chalcedoine ou ailleurs.

“C etait au fond l’abandon du concile et du ‘tome’ de saint Leon,
abandon dissimule, enveloppe dans un silence habile, que Ton pouvait,
avec quelque bonne volonte, qualifier derespectueux” (ibid., p. 41. See
also pp. 42, 43-7).

Recent attempts to reassert the identity of views between Cyril and
Leo usually miss the point: to see the thought of Cyril in its integrity.
They dwell on particular passages, isolated from the general context of
his thought. These passages — how different they are often in their gen-
eral tone ! — cannot reveal the true Cyril (see for example, the article of
Galtier, Cyrille et Leon a Chalcedoine). Moeller sees different Cyrils in
one Cyril, such as “the Cyril of the Twelve Anathematisms " , “the
Cyril of the Reunion Act”, etc. The Cyril recognized in Chalcedon is
for him the Cyril of the Reunion Act of 433 and not the Cyril of the
Anathematisms (see Neo-Chalcedonisme, pp. 659-bo). This in itself is
a genuine way of solving the problem; but I doubt whether the Church
Fathers themselves made such distinctions in their understanding of
Cyril’s thought. Secondly, this way leads us to think that Cyril was not
able to maintain a unity of thought in his christological system. We
think that the core of Cyril’s christology was that which was sanctioned
in the Council of Ephesus and was embodied in the Anathematisms
and exposed in various ways in his writings. The variety of formulas
in his terminology or differences of emphasis point to the richness of
his thought and to the wisdom of his use of language in avoiding clashes
or securing peace. In fact, he never compromised on the basic principles
of his teaching. It is not, therefore, legitimate to show in him such dis-
tinct aspects. The unity and consistency of his thought cannot allow
such an approach to him as a theologian.

We still think that the Council of Chalcedon disregarded the real

ADDITIONAL NOTE 2

223

Cyril by giving full recognition to the Tome of Leo which revealed
such close associations with Antiochene christology, as we shall see
later. What was said by J. Labourt, the first great historian of the Nes-
torian Church, more than fifty years ago remains true for us, even
being confirmed by the results of new researches. Having related the
story of the second council of Ephesus (449) and the subsequent
troubles, he says: “Le concile dc Chalcedoine remit toutes choses en
ordre. C’est une question longuement controversee de savoir en quel
sens furent prises les decisions dogmatiques de cette assemblee. M.
Hamack (Dogmengeschichte, p. 368) a pense que la majorite avait
entendu se prononcer dans le sens de saint Cyrille et du premier con-
cile d’Ephese. Nous ne pouvons souscrire acejugement. Que la majo-
rite fut attache a l’opinion cyrillienne et meme au monophysisme,
nous n’y contredirons pas. L’evenement le montra bien. Mais qu’elle se
soit declaree en faveur des opinions qu’elle professait, c’est ce que nous
ne saurions admettre” (Christ. Perse, pp. 257-8). On the contrary “La
majorite a adhere au ‘tome’ de Leon sur l’invitation des conimis-
saires imperiaux, quoi qu’aient pu penser et dire Anatolius de Constan-
tinople et ses partisans. Or, le ‘tome’ de Leon condamne Nestorius au
meme titre qu’Eutyches et prescrit l’adhesion au deoroKos', mais sa
christologie est aussi nettement dyophysite que la christologie antio-
chienne: elle Test presque d’avantage” (ibid., p. 258).

In a word, Cyril was not accepted officially by the Council of Chalce-
don through a genuine recognition of his christology as a whole.

There are some other people also who are involved in this story of
Mastoc’s journey to East Syria.

The one whose name is not mentioned by Koriwn and whom Mas-
toc met was the bishop ofSamosata, Koriwn writes: “[Mastoc] leaving
the holy bishop [of Edessa] came with his assistants to the city of Samo-
sata, where he was honoured by the most honourable bishop himself
and by the Church’’ (p. 48). As Peelers has tried to show (See Origines,
pp. 209-10; cf Idem, Jeremie, p. 18), the bishop of Samosata at the be-
ginning of the fifth century was none other than Andrew, who later
played a prominent part in the Nestorian controversy. He was one of
the most ardent and uncompromising supporters of Nestorius’ cause
after his condemnation at Ephesus and even after the reconciliation of
Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch by the Reunion Act of 433.

224 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

If, indeed, he was the bishop of Samosata when Mastoc visited the city
then this may provide us with another hint to the relation of Mastoc
with the Antiochene Christian tradition.

The other persons whom Mastoc met during his journey and whose
names are mentioned by Koriwn were Acacius of Amida, Babilas of
Edessa, and Rufmus in Samosata.

Acacius was most probably the bishop of Amid who played a con-
siderable role in the life of the Persian Church. (See Labourt, Christ.
Perse, pp. 89, 93, 101, 122; cf Nau, Ac ace, col. 244). We do not know
anything about his doctrinal position but presumably he was under the
influence of the theological tradition of Antioch (see Peeters, Jeremie,
pp. 17-18).

Babilas is a problematic name. There is no person by this name to be
found on the episcopal throne of Edessa. Therefore the great majority of
scholars agree in identifying him with the famous Rabboula of Edessa,
suggesting that the Armenian word Babilas is a wrong transcription of
Rabulas which must have been in the original text of Koriwn.

But here is a stumbling-block which has not been noticed by some
of these scholars. If Rabboula is the person referred to, then Mastoc’s
journey cannot have taken place before 412, because Rabboula be-
came the bishop of Edessa only after 412 and remained in his episcopal
see until 436 (see Peeters, Rabboula, p. 202; cf Hayes, icole d’£desse,
pp. 173-8). On the other hand, the chronological data given by Koriwn
(see pp. 44-50, also pp. 98-100), in itself a very confused chrono-
logy, puts the journey earlier than 412 and according to various inter-
pretations and calculations by scholars it is fixed as 404/5 (Ormanean,
Azgapatum, col. 272, 276-7), 406/8 (Akinean, Armenian Alphabet, col.
512), 392/3 (Manandean, Crit. Hist., pp. 265-6). Thus, seeing the chrono-
logical difficulty in the identification of Babilas as Rabboulas, Akinean
suggests that Babilas is not a wrong transcription of Rabulas but of
Bakidas. And indeed, there is a bishop by the name of Paki'da or Peq-
uida in the episcopal see of Edessa in the period between 398 and 409
(seeDuval, Histoire d’ £desse, pp. 138, 150; cf Labourt, Christ. Perse, p. 93).
This suggestion, made for the first time by H. Thorossian as Akinean
says (I have not seen the articles of Thorossian which have been pub-
lished in Bazmavep), is more likely. But if we take the date as fixed by
Manandean, 392/3, then this identification also becomes untenable.
And, indeed, there are good reasons for taking seriously the dating of
Manandean (see his article Armenian Alphabet; cf Tallon, Livre desLettres,

225

ADDITIONAL NOTH 3

pp. 21-2). Again, the hypothesis of Mastoc’s meeting and friendship
with Ibas during this journey and other identifications and conclu-
sions referred to have to be taken cautiously.

Here we cannot embark on the most complicated problem of the
date of Mastoc’s journey. It would take us far from our immediate
purpose. It is a theme to be dealt with independently and at some con-
siderable length. But it seems to us that Mastoc might have made more
than one journey to East Syria, and the present confusion in Koriwn’s
and other historians’ accounts might have arisen out of confounding or
combining those journeys.

Thus, having shown how unsettled the problem is, it seems to us
that the cautious approach to the interpretation of the significance of
Mastoc’s journey is the safest way of not falling into sheer speculation
or into exaggerated conclusions.

On the one hand, Movses Xorenaci says that Sahak was not received by
the local authorities with due respect. Therefore, he sent Mastoc and
Vardan to the Emperor. Here (iii, 57) Xorenaci produces copies of
letters exchanged between Sahak, the Emperor Theodosius II, Atticus,
Patriarch of Constantinople, and Anatolius, Governor of the eastern
provinces of the Byzantine Empire. The authenticity of these letters
has been rightly suspected and almost unanimously rejected by schol-
ars. But the correspondence itself reflects the difficulties and bears
witness to the general atmosphere of the ecclesiastical affairs of the
time.

In these letters, Theodosius and Atticus let Sahak know their dis-
content at his having betrayed the tradition of his fathers by turning to
the side of the Syrians for help in the invention of the Armenian alpha-
bet. But now that relations have been restored they tell him that they
were satisfied by knowing that it was by the help of God that the
Armenian alphabet was invented (they refer to the episode of miracle
in the invention of the Armenian alphabet which is related in Koriwn
and Xorenaci) — and not by that of the Syrians !

Here we have a clear reflection of the internal conflict between the
two elements in Armenian Christianity. The tide was now turning, for
a short time, as we shall see, in favour of the Hellenophile section.

On the other hand, Koriwn relates the story of Mastoc’s visit to
Byzantine Armenia and to Constantinople without reference to any

2 26 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

difficulty or any oppsiotion front the authorities in the Byzantine sec-
tion. It is more than probable that Koriwn in his hagiographical repre-
sentation of Mastoc’s life, shows his hero always and everywhere
hailed with praise, admiration, and devotion, and consequently dis-
cards any reference to opposition or antagonism. This must be the
reason why he tells us that Mastoc was received with honour by the
bishops, princes, and especially by Anatolius the Governor. One would
tend to question Korivvn’s sincerity on this point. If, indeed, Mastoc
was hailed with such sympathy and honour, as Koriwn wants us to
believe, why then did he go to Constantinople when his work in the
Byzantine section was so urgently needed? We must remember that
Koriwn whites as a hagiographer rather than as a historian, this term
being understood in the sense in which it can be applied to characterize
Xorenaci as a writer. For Koriwn, Mastoc is the hero, the saint.

Again, P. Peeters exaggerates in his interpretation of the situation in
the Armenian Church. First, speaking of the Church in Persia, he says:
“Non seulement l’episcopat de Perse n’a pris aucune part active aux
controverses d’Ephese, mais sur le moment il n’y a prete aucune attention.
Le bruit de ces batailles theologiques n’a guere depasse l’Euphrate, et les
demiers echos s’en sont perdus dans le desert de Syrie. Une annee,
sinon d’avantage, apres le concile, Ibas d’£dessejuge necessaire d’alerter
ses amis de Perse. Sa fameuse lettre a Mari de Beit-Ardasir entre dans
un expose retrospectif, qui remonte au deluge. Tout ce detail etait
complctement oiseux pour un lecteur, instruit de la querelle dont
l’Tglise grecque retentissait depuis trois ans.” Then, turning to the Ar-
menians, he adds: “En Armenie l’ignorance ne pouvait etre plus com-
plete; mais elle a dure plus longtemps. Plusieurs annees (sic) apres 431,
on n’y connaissait meme pas les canons d’Ephese. Ce fut un detache-
nient de ‘traducteurs’ qui les y rapporta de Constantinople, au retour
de la troisieme expedition organisee par le patriarche S. Sahak. Koriwn
l’aflirme expressement dans la Vie de S. Mesrop, et il en parle de bon
escient puisqu’il avait lui-meme ete attache a cette mission. On verra
plus loin, par d’autres temoignages et par celui de Koriwn lui-meme,
que les condemnations prononcees a Ephesc furent d’abord accueilhes
chez les Armcniens avec une indifference qui ressemble a de 1 ’incom-
prehension” (Jeremie, pp. 15-16).

If the canons were not received by the leaders of the Armenian

additional NOTE 4

227

Church chat does not necessarily mean that the news of the Council
of Ephesus had not reached them. Otherwise, the whole correspon-
dence between Acacius and Sahak — here the Council is explicitly
mentioned and its decisions discussed — remains unexplained. Secondly,
now we have a document which is a fragment of a letter written by
Eznik from Constantinople and addressed to his teacher, Mastoc, in
Armenia immediately after the Council of Ephesus, in which the dis-
ciple of Mastoc gives a brief account of the christological disputes
which had taken place in the imperial city and elsewhere in the Empire.
The fragment has been preserved in the Seal of Faith (see p. 130). Here I
quote it in French translation by Tallon: “Pour ce qui cst de la stabilite
dcs Eglises qu’un vent d’erreur leve a l’improviste a cru ebranlee, grace
aux priercs que tu as adressees an Dicu de saintete, le calme s’est fait.
Tous les eveques des Remains se sont mis d’accord pour tenir ferme-
ment la foi primitive, celle des trois cents Peres, et par anatheme ils ont
interdit qu’on osat proposer je ne sais quelle foi d’origine etrangere et
de fraiche date; mais ils ont ordonne, sur cette meme foi, de batir, et
a la mcme fois, de l’cnseigner. Ils se sont mis d’accord pour confesser le
Christ comme vrai Dieu, Fils de Dieu, Monogcne, ne du Pcre avant
routes les creatures, et Seigneur createur de routes choses; et pour con-
fesser que ce mcme Dieu Verbe, a la fin des temps, a chair revetue,
s’est fait homme pour nous sans subir, a partir de son identite divine, ni
conversion, ni decheance, ni destruction; et que, Dieu, en sa naissance
de la Vicrge, il est homme parfait selon la naissance charnelle; que la
Vierge est nominee et est reellement Mere du Seigneur et Merc de
Dieu; que celui qui est Dieu parfait est dit homme parfait parcequ’il est
parfait en ses membres et (comme Dieu parfait) il a dote d’une ame sa
chair sainte, et non comme homme . . (Livre des Lettres, pp. 52-3).

In view of this evidence (ct Xorenaci, bk. iii, ch. 61) which has es-
caped the attention of Peeters, it is more reasonable to think that after
the Council of Ephesus when both Nestorius and Cyril were con-
demned, and the Emperor was trying to find a way out of the dilemma
in which he was put by this bitter conflict of two strong sections in the
Church in Constantinople, responsible people in the Church were
much more occupied in trying to secure a unity first among themselves
or to establish their respective positions than to send copies of the
canons to individual Churches.

This fluid and unsettled state could have been the only reason for
the delay in sending the canons or informing the Armenian Church

228 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

officially. But for the news of the Council there was no reason why
they should not have reached Armenia. The students were not late in
coming back to Armenia and bringing the canons.

Tallon sees here a later interpolation. He says that in the original text
Nestorius must have been meant here and not Theodore (see Livre des
Lettres, p. 31, n. 1). But I think there is no need to imagine an interpol-
ation to understand Nestorius as being referred to. This passage in
which special reference is made to, and a characteristic emphasis is put
on, “the writing on the Incarnation” is quite revealing. Obviously,
this is a reference to Theodore’s De Incarnatione which became such a
controversial document in the later disputes of the Three Chapters.
As Richard says: “Des ouvrages de Theodore de Mopsueste, celui qui
a valu le plus de reproches est sans contredit son traite sur l’lncamation”

( Fragments , p. 55 ; cf Devreesse, Essai, pp. 44-8).

The only difficulty in understanding the reference of Acacius to
Theodore and not to Nestorius is his second assertion in the passage
where he says that the bishops at Ephesus decreed that the books should
be destroyed. Certainly that was a measure taken against Nestorius’
writings. The difficulty can be removed only if we understand this
reference as being Acacius’ own interpretation of the Council’s de-
cision. Thus he, on his own responsibility, must have extended the de-
cision to be applied, legitimately in his own view, to the writings of
Nestorius’ teacher. That was very natural. What difference could there
be between Theodore and Nestorius? And as the problem here was
concerned with the writings of Theodore so the decisions of the
Council of Ephesus on Nestorius’ writings could be applied to those of
Theodore as well.

Richard also has reached this conclusion: “Voila done comment
notre eveque (i.e. Acacius) apprit que Theodore et Nestorius ctaient
a mettre dans le meme panier ct que le concile d’Ephese, en condem-
nant au feu les ecrits du second, avait implicitement voue au mcme sort
ceux de son maitre en heresie. C’est, somme toute, ce qui ressort,
quoique un peu confusement, de sa lettre a son collegue armenien”
(Acace, p. 405).

ADDITIONAL NOTE 6

229

In fact, Dom B. Mercier and Tallon translate it Diodore and Richard
comments on this translation. But I think there are good reasons to
substantiate my translation.

(a) The words T'eodor and Diodor are so similar in writing that the
change from one to another is very easy. For example, in Koriwn’s
text we have T'eodios (Theodius) for T'eodor (Theodore). In the Book
of Letters itself, in Sahak’s answer to Proclus’ letter Theodore’s name is
mentioned as Diodor (Diodore) — see Erratum. Of course this is a mis-
take of the copyist of the manuscript and proves that the similarity of
the two names in Armenian is an open danger for such confusion.

(b) As all these letters are closely interrelated and have the writings
of Theodore at the centre as the common subject, Diodore’s case is not
likely to find its proper place in them. It is a discordant note.

(c) In all the other sources on the same problem, namely the treatise
of Innocentius Maroniae and the letter of the two Armenian priests,
there is no allusion at all to Diodore. All speak of Theodore alone, as
we shall see. Moreover, the Armenian sources — Koriwn and Xorenaci
— are completely silent over the name of Diodore and have instead
Theodore. The whole controversy was about Theodore and Nestorius.

(d) We have also internal evidence in the letter itself. The associa-
tion of Nestorius and Theodore, expressed very characteristically, is
much more relevant and is in complete accordance with the other
sources than the association of Nestorius and Diodore.

With all these considerations we think that we are justified in trans-
lating Diodor as Theodore.

M. Richard argues categorically against the sincerity of the presen-
tation of the facts by Innocentius. He says: “Le recit d’Innocent ne
merite d’ailleurs que peu de confiance. A Ten croire il faudrait rejeter
apres le decret imperial du 3 aoiit 43 5 contre Nestorius la diffusion des
ecrits de Theodore qui aurait provoque l’intervention de Rabboula et
d’Acace en Armenie. Nos documents contredisent absolument cette
tentative de justifier par une manoeuvre deloyale des Nestoriens le
declenchement de la campagne contre Theodore. Les ecrits de ce
dernier etaient tout de meme autre chose qu’un succedane des homelies
de Nestorius” ( Acace , p. 409, n. 1).

230 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

That Innocentius’ account is not completely accurate is not doubted.
At least, there is a striking chronological anachronism between the
condemnation of Nestorius’ writings by an imperial decree (43 5) and
the beginning of the anti-Theodorean campaign in 432. But this can be
easily understood if we take into account the fact that Innocentius had
no intention of presenting an historical event as such, but rather a theo-
logical issue. In other words, Innocentius was not concerned with the
details of the chronological order. Therefore, he did not care about the
dates or other minor details. He presented the story in its broad lines.
However questionable may be the details of his historical account,
there can be no doubt about the basic fact he reported : the anti-Theo-
dorean campaign started because the Nestorians took and used Theo-
dore’s writings as a vehicle of propaganda. Whether Theodore’s works
are not really a substitute for Nestorius’ homilies, that problem has to
be distinguished from the interpretation of Theodore’s doctrine by
both the Nestorians and the anti-Nestorians of the time. To both sides
he was the “Teacher of Nestorius”. Otherwise Rabboula and Acacius
would have had no reason, not even any pretext, to attack Theodore.
If personal feelings had something to do with their theological attitude
to Theodore’s writings, they would not have had the chance of oppos-
ing them if these latter had not been taken as a shelter for Nestorian
teaching. Therefore on this basic point Innocentius is not wrong.

Furthermore, Innocentius’ account is supported by the letter of the
two Armenian priests. Again, it is significant to note that the Armenian
sources — Koriwn and Xorenaci — present the beginning of the contro-
versy in the same way as Innocentius. I suppose that Richard has not
seen the testimonies of the Armenian historiographers.

One might even think that Rabboula might have thought that Acacius
was in a better position than himself to carry on this task since at that
time Armenia’s relations with Melitene were very friendly and could
give Acacius the opportunity of an intervention with hopeful prospects.

That Rabboula is not disassociated from this intervention may be
accepted on the ground that the two Armenian priests in their letter to
Proclus mention his name together with that of Acacius. Innocentius
also confirms this.

What had been his own part in this intervention? We do not know
precisely. Did he himself write to the Armenians as the letter of the two

ADDITIONAL NOTE 9

231

Armenian priests suggests? We do not think so, because if he had
written, his letter would have been preserved together with those of
Acacius. He might have taken part in the intervention through the
directives he gave to Acacius, as Richard also tends to think. Perhaps
Koriwn’s rather vague expression — “bishops assembled in synod”—
implies a reference to Rabboula as well.

There is a third person who is said to have written to St Sahak and
St Mastoc. He was the famous Cyril of Alexandria (see Xorenaci,
bk. iii, ch. 61). If, indeed, Cyril had written directly to Sahak and Mas-
toc his letter would have been preserved and held in higher esteem
than those of Acacius. We think that Xorenaci’s reference to Cyril
may be understood as a reference to his correspondence with Rabboula
and Acacius and, at the same time, to the part he played in the story of
Proclus’ Tome to the Armenians. At any rate, it could be interpreted
only as a very general reference to Cyril’s part rather than a direct
correspondence with Sahak and Mastoc.

The identity of these three priests is difficult to establish. Their mission
is again obscure. Tallon suggests that they were three Syrian priests. He
deduces their nationality from their names: Hon, Koth, and Anjn,
without, making it clear who or why these names are only they were
Syriac. He goes as far as to say “a titre d’hypothese”, that they were
three Syrian priests sent by Rabboula to inspect the situation in Ar-
menia (see Livre des Lettres, pp. 25-6) .

There is no evidence whatsoever to support this hypothesis. On the
contrary, there are many objections to it. Thus, why did they come to
report to Acacius if they were sent by Rabboula? If Rabboula was so
directly involved in the problems of the Armenian Church he would
have dealt with it personally. Secondly, if these priests came into
contact with the Iranophile princes and Syrophile bishops, as Tallon
suggests, then, again, it is unlikely that these people would follow the
advice of a Rabboula or an Acacius, because these princes sympathized
with the Persian policy, which favoured Nestorian expansion in the
Persian Empire. Thirdly, from Acacius’ letter itself it is clear that these
three people were connected with him personally. He calls them “ our
beloved priests”.

232 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

N. Adontz has seen in the answer-letter of Sahak to Proclus a later
fabrication. The person who did it must have taken Sahak's letter
addressed to Acacius, reproduced it with only slight elaborations, and
represented it as the answer of Sahak and Mastoc to Proclus (see
Makoc, pp. 25-7).

There is no doubt that textual alterations were made in Proclus’
Tome, as we shall see and try to explain. But we have no grounds to
suppose that the letter of Sahak to Proclus is anything more than
purely a later invention. Why would people think of an answer if there
had been no answer ? Adontz ignores this question altogether. It seems
to us more likely that Sahak himself wrote this letter, and since the
theme of Proclus’ letter was the same as that of Acacius’ he did not
deem it wrong to give the same answer with some additions made for
the clarification of the doctrine of the Armenian Church.

M. Richard, in his turn, has imagined for Sahak a very complicated
way of answering Proclus’ letter. He thinks that Sahak was not a good
Hellenist and, therefore, having no one in his entourage who knew
Greek better than himself, took up his letter to Acacius and answered
Proclus in similar if not identical terms (see Ac, ice, pp. 407-9). His
argument is very weak indeed. In fact, we know from the testimonies
of the Armenian historians of the fifth century that Sahak was the
greatest Hellenist of his time, and only with that mastery of Greek was
he able to direct the translations of the Holy Scriptures and the Church
Fathers so successfully. Therefore for Sahak to write a letter in Greek
was not as difficult a task as Richard supposes.

The case of the authorship of these homilies is a complicated problem.
Traditionally they have been recognized as the homilies of John Man-
dakuni. They were published in Venice under the name of Mandakuni.
B. Sargisean made a detailed study of them without raising any doubt
concerning the authenticity of the authorship (see Mandakuni, Venice,

1895).

For the first time, K. Tcr-Mkrtc‘ean noticed that in many manu-
scripts of the Collection of Ejmiacin they had been copied under the
name of John Mayragomeci, a seventh-century Armenian author and
an ardent controversialist engaged in the controversy over the corrup-

ADDITIONAL NOTE 12

233

tibility or incorruptibility of Christ’s human body. Having studied the
manuscript tradition of these homilies and having carefully investi-
gated the historical evidence on Mayragomeci’ s life and work, Ter-
Mkrtc’ean came to the definite conclusion that the author of these
homilies was not Mandakuni but Mayragomeci. The transference of
the authorship from the latter to the former must be explained by the
doctrinal position of Mayragomeci and the dislike which surrounded
his memory (see Mandakuni, pp. 94-5, 99-100).

Ter-Mkrtc’ean’s arguments seem to be well founded. But still many
historians of Armenian literature place this work under the name of
Mandakuni. They all mention that the authorship has been questioned
by Ter-Mkrtc‘ean but they do not take the step of replacing the name
of Mandakuni with that of Mayragomeci.

However, this is not our justification for including this work in our
survey. The homily that we take into account has not been found
under the name of Mayragomeci (see Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Mandakuni,
p. 94). It is impossible to think that a man like Mayragomeci who was
so zealously and violently engaged in the most complicated problems
of christology could have written this homily, which has nothing in it
to reveal his mind and to reflect the theological milieu in which he
lived. Therefore it is most likely that this homily was the work of
Mandakuni as it stands in the printed edition. Its authorship has not
been challenged in any manuscript.

Barhebraeus gives the following information about Simon of
Beit-Arsam which is worth quoting, because his coming to Armenia is
mentioned explicitly : “Erat autem per id tempus presbyter quidam,
Simeon nomine, ex Beth-Arsam, pagojuxta Seleuciam sito, virortho-
doxus. Hie cum regis Cavadis consilium comperisset, erum adiit, jussio-
nemque ab eo obtinuit ut totam terram Sennaar et Persidem universam
perlustraret, atque orthodoxos animaret ad libere conventus suos con-
gregandos, impetumque Nestorianorum a se retundendum. Haec ita
ille peregit. Quacunque autem transibat, chirographa accepit a Grae-
cis, Armenis Syrisque, se nempe a Nestorii dogmate esse alienos.
Porro haec scripta detulit ad regem, qui eadem sigillis suis regiis con-
firmavit. Et appellata sunt codices confessionis et reposita Tagriti,
quae urbs sola Barsumae corruptionem evaserat”. ( Chronicon Eccles -
iasttcon, vol. iii, col. 86).

234 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Michael Syrus in his turn confirms this testimony. He says: “A cet
epoque vivait Simeon le Perse sumomme le Disputateur, eveque de
Beit Arsam, sohde dans la foi, verse dans les Ecritures, et adonne aux
controverses meme avant son episcopal. C’est pourquoi les Nestoriens,
les Manicheens et les Marcionites de Perse trembkient meme devant
son nom. 11 circulait et visitait les Chretiens” ( Chronique , vol. ii,
p. 165; cf pp. 166 ff.)

See also Labourt, Christ. Perse, p. 158, n. 1; cf Duval, Litt. Syr.,
pp. 148-52; Chabot, Lift. Syr., p. 69; Duchesne, Eglise Vie. siecle, pp.
311-12.

These two names are most problematic. Whom are we to see behind
them?

N, Adontz has suggested that Ampelis was Timothy Aelurus and
Anatolis, who is mentioned next to him, was none other than Tim-
othy’s brother, who accompanied him in his exile to Cherson.

K. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean after refuting Adontz’s view (Adontz’s view was
made available to me through Ter-Mkrtc‘ean’s criticism. I have not
seen his article in Christ. Vostok, 1913, pp. 175-86) suggests on his part
that Amphilochius of Side could have been the person to whom this
reference is made. In fact, he was one of those bishops who in 457 wrote
to Emperor Leo I saying that they did not approve of the Council of
Chalcedon (see Lightfoot, Amphilochius ; Janin, Amphiloque). Only a
few lines have survived of his letter (see P.G., t. 77, col. 15x5-16).
Ter-Mkrtc‘ean’s suggestion is that it could be this letter which is men-
tioned here, in our document.

Inglizean agrees with Ter-Mkrtc‘ean in identifying Ampelis with
Amphilochius (see Arm. Kirche, pp. 367-8, n. 27).

There are real objections to both views. First of all, a common
objection to both of them is that neither Timothy, nor Anatolis, nor
Amphilochius could have added Zeno’s Henoticon to the letter men-
tioned in our document. All three had already died before the publi-
cation of the Henoticon.

The identification with Timothy, although an attractive view,
raises this problem: why do the two names Ampelis= Timothy differ
so much?

On the other hand, the identification with Amphilochius raises
more than one problem. Thus, the mention of the city of Cherson

235

ADDITIONAL NOTE 14

makes it very difficult to accept that identification. In fact, Amphil-
ochius was the bishop of Side in Pamphylia, whereas Cherson is in the
Crimea. In our document Cherson is mentioned twice and leaves no
room for false transliteration. Secondly, the name Ampelis is not nec-
essarily Amphilochius, because this latter has been translated into Ar-
menian as Amp'ilok'es (see Timothy, Refutation, p. 32, referring to
Amphilochius of Iconium). Thirdly, Amphilochius of Side never had
such a great reputation or enjoyed such a high authority among the
Monophysites. To make his letter a document for proving the ortho-
doxy of the christological doctrine of the Armenian or Syrian Church is
not natural, or, to be more precise, does not sound very reasonable.
For Timothy Aelurus this objection cannot be raised. Moreover, the
list of the Church Fathers quoted in this document shows clearly some
direct connection with Timothy’s work. Again, another hint which
makes the identification of Ampelis with Timothy more likely is that
the priest mentioned here as “Anatolis the priest” is exactly the ex-
pression used for his brother by Timothy himself in his Refutation.
Thus, referring to the second Council of Ephesus (449), Timothy says
that he was present there together with his blessed brother “Anatolius
the priest” (see p. 35). But how are we to explain then the expression
“Anatolis of Constantinople ” ?

It seems that this identification, if at all possible, must be made after
deeper investigation and further study. The scope of our study does not
permit us to enter into it. In fact, what is more important for us here is
the mention of the Twelve Chapters or Anathematisms of Cyril and the
Henoticon in connection with the case of Ampelis and Anatolis. We
must note here that the mention of the Twelve Anathematisms is very
important because it gives us a hint to the understanding of the theo-
logical implications of this document and that of the Henoticon for the
understanding of the ecclesiastical policy.

It was indeed with a feeling of surprise that I became aware of the way
in which Fr V. Inglizcan has tackled this problem.

He assumes that even in the time of the Council of Dowin (506), the
Armenians were still unaware of the Council of Chalcedon. So they
could not have taken any decision about it either before 506 or at the
Council of Dowin itself (see Arm. Kirche, p. 366). It was only after the
Council of Dowin and in the time of the writing of this second letter

236 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

that they became aware of these Monophysite troubles and acted along
the directives of Simon of Beit-Arsam, who himself dictated the letter
and made available to the Armenians the Monophysite writings (see
Arm. Kirche, p. 367).

Is it at all possible to imagine Babgen and his bishops being as ignor-
ant as Inglizean thinks and wants us to believe ? How would the leader
of the Armenian Church and the heads of the Georgian and Albanian
Churches together with their bishops allow a certain Syrian priest to
dictate his view to a whole Church or to a body of Churches? Was
the Armenian Church, which so strenuously opposed Nestorianism,
left in the hands of Simon of Beit-ArSam? Is it not more reasonable to
think that Simon already knew the attitude of the Armenian Church
and on the basis of that knowledge and in the perfect hope and assur-
ance of obtaining its support, came to Armenia?

There is no need to argue against Inglizean’s view, which seems to be
no more than the sheer repetition of an old-fashioned idea that the
Armenians must not be blamed for their rejection of the Council of
Chalcedon, because they were misled by the Syrian Monophysites ! In
other words, the Armenians were only victims of misguidance ! I think
that fifth century history and theology are quite eloquent to tell us that
the Armenian Church was not theologically as poor as to be unable to
make its own decisions in such matters of Christian doctrine.

The earlier chapters of our study contain the full answer to Ingli-
zean’s view.

>* '9* '"S" <T* ^ S3

TRANSLITERATION

SYSTEM

237

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

ABBREVIATIONS

Books or articles marked with an asterisk are written in the Ar-
menian language.

*Abelean, Literature M. Abelean, History of the Ancient Arm. Lit-

erature, vol. i (from the beginning to the tenth century), 2nd im-
pression, Beirut, 1955.

*AbeIean, Korium M. Abelean, Koriwn: “ The Life of MaHtoc”

(the text, critical edition based on various manuscripts, trans-
lation, introduction, and notes), Erevan, 1941; reprinted in Cairo,
1954. 1 have used this reprinted edition.

*Acarean, Mesrop H. Acarean, Mesrop Maxtor, Antelias, 1953 (not

complete. Originally published as a series of articles in Ejmiacin
review. Reprinted in Hask).

AC.O. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. by E. Schwartz,

1914 ff.

Adeney, Eastern Churches W. F. Adeney, The Creek and Eastern

Churches, Edinburgh, 1908.

*Adontz, Malta c N. Adontz, MaHtoc and his disciples according to

foreign sources, Vienna, 1925. (Originally published in HA, 1925,
col. 193-202, 321-8, 435-41, 53I-9-)

*Agat‘angelos History of St Gregory and of the Conversion of Ar-

menia, Venice, 1862. (The critical edition, Tiflis, 1909, has not been
available to me.)

* Akinean, Kiwrion N. Akinean, Kiwrion, Catholicosof the Georgians,

Vienna, 1910 (National Library, No. 60).

*Akinean, Timothy N. Akinean, Timothy Aelurus in Armenian

Literature, Vienna (National Library, No. 58).

* Akinean, MaHoc N. Akinean, MaUoc Vardapet Hacekaci, art. in

HA, t. 49 (i935), col. 505-50.

* Akinean, Sahak N. Akinean, Sahak the Great, Catholicos of the

Armenians, art. in HA, t. 49 (1935), col. 470-504.

238

bibliographical abbreviations

239

*Akinean, Armenian Alphabet N. Akinean, The Invention of the

Armenian Alphabet, art. in HA, t. 52 (1938), col. 289-333.

* Akinean, Sahapivan N. Akinean, The Canons of the Council oj

Sahapivatt, Vienna, 1933 (reprinted from HA, 1949).

* Akinean, Koriwn N. Akinean, Koriwn: “ The Life of St Maltoc",

Vienna, 1952 (reprinted from HA, 1949}.

Amadouni, Hieromoines Arminiens G. Amadouni, Le Role his-

torique des Hieromoines Armeniens, art. in II Monachismo Orientate,
pp. 279-305. See Orientalia Christiana Analecta, No. 153 (1958),
Rome.

Amann, Theodore E. Amann, Theodore de Mopsueste, art. in D.T.C.,

t. xv, col. 235-79.

Amann, Theopaschite (Controverse) E. Amann, art. in D.T.C., t. xv,

col. 505-12.

Amann, Trois Chapitres E. Amann, Trois Chapitres ( Affaire de), art.

in D.T.C., t. xv, col. 1868-1924.

*Ananean, Dowin Document P. Ananean, A historical document on the

second Council of Dowin, in Bazmavep, 1957, pp. 111-21, 1958,
pp. 64-72, 1 17-3 1.

Appleyard, Eastern Churches E. S. Appleyard, Eastern Churches,

Containing sketches of the Nestorian, Armenian, Jacobite, Cop-
tic, and Abyssinian Communities, London, 1850.

* Ararat Religious and philological review of the Catholicosate

of Ejmiacin, 1868-1916. It has been replaced since 1943 by
Ejmiacin.

Arpee, Armenian Christianity L. Arpee, A History of Armenian

Christianity, New York, 1946.

Arsen Saparaci See Melik‘set‘~Bek.

Asdourian, Armenian und Rom P. Asdourian, Die politischen Bezie-

hungen zwischen Armenien und Rom v. 190 v. Chr. bis 428, Venice,
191 1. (I have used the Armenian edition, Venice, 1912.)

Aslan, Etudes historiques K. Aslan, Etudes historiques sur le peuple

armenien, Paris, 1909.

Balgy, Doctr. Cath. inter Arm. A. Balgy, Historia doctrina catho-

lica inter Armenos uniottisque eoritm cum Ecclesia romana in concilio
Florentino, Vienna, 1878.

Bardy, Brigandage G. Bardv, Le “Brigandage d’Ephese ” et le Concile

de Chalcedoine, in Fliche et Martin, Histoire de VEglise, vol. iv,
pp. 21 1-40.

240 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Bardy, Chalcedoine G. Bardy, Du Concile de Chalcedoine a Yaven-

ementde Justin Ier. (451-518), in Fliche et Martin, vol. iv, pp. 271-
33<5.

Bardy, iglises de Perse et d’Armenie G. Bardy, Les £glises de Perse et

d’Armenie au Ve. et au Vie. siecles, in Flichc et Martin, vol. iv, pp.
321-36, 497-512.

Bardy, Barsauma G. Bardy, Barsauma, art. in D.H.G.E., t. vi, col.

948-50.

Bardy, Theodoret G. Bardy, Theodoret, art. in D.T.C., t. xv, col.

299-325.

Bardy, Question des Latigues G. Bardy, La question des langues dans

I'Lolise ancienne, vol. i, Paris, 1948.

Barhebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticon G. Barhebraeus, Chronicon

Ecclesiasticon, 3 volumes, ed. by J. B. Abbelos and T. J. Lamy, with
a Latin translation, 1872-4.

Batiffol, Siege Apostolique P. BatifFol, Le Catholicisme des origines a

Saint Leon, t. iii: Le Siege Apostolique (359-451), Paris, 1924.

Baynes, Rome and Armenia N. H. Baynes, Rome and Armenia in

the fourth century, in English Historical Review, t. xxv (1910),
pp. 625-43.

Bedjan, Heraclide P. Bedjan, Le Livre d’Heraclide de Damns (the

Syriac text of Nestorius’ Heraclides — see the Introduction and the
Appendixes), Paris, 1910.

Bidez, Evagrius -J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History

of Evagrius (the Greek text with introduction, critical notes, and
indexes), London, 1898.

B.L. Book of Letters — Girk T‘lt‘oc — in the “Sahak- Mcsropean

Library”, vol. v, Tiflis, 1901,

Brehier, Justinien L. Brehier, La politique religieuse de Justinien, in

Fliche et Martin, t. iv, pp. 437-82.

Brehier, Successeurs de Justinien L. Brehier, Les successeurs de Jus-

tinien, in Fliche et Martin, pp. 483-93.

Brehier, Anastase L. Brehier, A vastest 7 , art. in D.H.G.E., t. ii, col.

1447-57.

Briere, Legende de Nestorius M. Briere, La Legende Syriaque de Nest-

orius, in R.O.C., t. v (15), (1910), pp. 1-25. (Syriac text with
French translation.)

Burkitt, Eastern Christianity F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity,

London, 1904.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

241

Bury, Lat. Rom. Emp. -J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman

Empire, 2 volumes, London, 1923.

*t‘amc‘ean, History Fr M. Camc‘ean, History of the Armenians

from the beginning to a.d. 1784, in six books, 3 volumes, Venice,
1784-86.

Camelot, Theologies P. Th. Camelot, Theologies Grecques et

Theologie Latine a Chalcedoine, in R.S.Ph.Th., t. xxxv (1951),
pp. 401-02.

Cavallera, Timothee F. Cavallera, Le Dossier Patristique de

Timothee Aelure, in Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique, 1909,
pp. 342-59-

Chabot, £cole de Nisibe -J. B. Chabot, L'fdcole de Nisibe, son

histoire, ses statuts (extrait du Journal Asiatique — 9eme. serie, t. viii,
Juillet-Aout, 1896), Paris, 1896.

Chabot, Synodicon Orient ale -J. B. Chabot, Synodicon Orientak ou

Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (Syriac text with French translation),
Paris, 1902.

Chabot, Michel le Syrien -J. B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le

Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (3 volumes: French trans-
lation), Paris, 1 90 1-5.

Chabot, Litt. Syriaque -J. B. Chabot, Litterature Syriaque, Paris, 1935.

Chadwick, Eucharist and Christology H. Chadwick, Eucharist and

Christology in the Nestorian controversy, in J.T.S., New Series, vol.
ii( I 95l),pp- 145-64.

Charanis, Anastasias P. Charanis, Church and State in the Later

Roman Empire. The religious policy of Anastasius 1 (Univ. of Wis-
consin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, 26), Madison,
U.S.A., 1939.

Christensen, Iran Sassanide A. Christensen, L’lran sous les Sassanides

(deuxieme edition revue et augmentee), Copenhagen, 1944.

D’Ales, Symbole de 433 A. d’Ales, Le Symbole de Vannee 433 et

la premiere ecole Nestorienne, in Rech.S.R., t. xxi (1931), pp. 257-68.

D’Ales, Lettre d’lbas A. d’Ales, Lettre d’lbas a Mares le Person in

Rech. S.R., t. xxii (1932), pp. 5-25.

Demougeot, Empire Romain E. Demougeot, De V unite a la division

del’Empire Romain (395-410), Paris, 1951.

Der-Nersessian, Arm. Byz. Emp. S. Der-Nersessian, Armenia and

the Byzantine Empire : A brief study of Armenian Art and
Civilization, Preface by H. Gregoire, Cambridge, Mass., 1947.

242 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Devreesse, Apres Ephese R. Devreesse, Apres le concile d’Ephese le

retour des Orientaux a V unite (433-7), in E.O., t. xxx (1931), pp.
271-92.

Devreesse, Trois Chapitres R. Devreesse, Le debut de la querelle des

Trois Chapitres, in Rev S. R., t. xi (1931), pp. 543-65.

Devreesse, Antioche R. Devreesse, Le Patriarchat d'Antioche depuis

lapaix de i’Eglisejusqu a la conquete arabe, Paris, 1945.

Devreesse, Ve. Concile R. Devreesse, Le Cinquieme Concile et

Y cecumenicite byzantine, in Studi e Testi, No. 123 (Miscellanea Gio-
vanni Mercati, iii, pp. 1-15, Vatican, 1946.

Devreesse, Essai R. Devreesse, Essai su Thdodore de Mopsueste in

Studi e Testi, No. 141, Roma, 1948.

Diepen, Assumptus Homo H. Diepen, L'Assumptus Homo a Chalce-

doine, in Revue Thomiste, 1951, p. 573-608.

Diepen, Trois Chapitres H. M. Diepen, Les Trois Chapitres au con-

cile de Chalcedoine: une etude de la Christologie de Y Anatolie Ancieme,
Oosterhout, 1953.

Dombalis, 1300th Anniversary C. N. Dombalis, A Symposium on the

Occasion of the 1500th Anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon, in
Ecumenical Review, vol. iv (1952), No. 4, pp. 393-404. See the
articles of G. Florovsky and A. Schmemann.

Doucin, Hist. Nest. P. L. Doucin, Histoire du Nestorianisme, Paris,

1698.

Dowling, Armenian Church T. E. Dowling, The Armenian Church,

London, 1910.

Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse R. Draguet, Julien d’ Halicarnasse ,

Louvain, 1924.

Duchesne, Autonomies L. Duchesne, Autonomies Ecclesiastiques —

Eglises Separees, 2me. edition, Paris, 1905.

Duchesne, Separated Churches L. Duchesne, The Churches Separated

from Rome, tr. by A. H. Matthew, London, 1907.

Duchesne, Church History L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian

Church, tr. by C. Jenkins, London, 1914-24.

Duchesne, Eglise Vie. sikle L. Duchesne, L'Eglise au Vie. siecle,

Paris, 1935.

Dulaurier, Eglise Armenienne E. Dulaurier, Histoire, Dogmes,

Traditions, et Liturgie de I’Eglise Armenienne Orientale, Paris, 1855.

Dulaurier, Chrotiologie Armenienne E. Dulaurier, Recherches sur la

Chronologie Armenienne, Paris, 1859.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

243

Duval, Histoire d’fidesse R. Duval, Histoire politique, religieuse et

litter aire d’fdessejusqu a la premiere Crotsade, Paris, 1892.

Duval, Litt. Syriaque R. Duval, La Litterature Syriaque, Paris,

l8 "’

Dyer, Armenian Church S. A. Dyer, The Armenian Church — NOT

Eutychian. A latter article in The Guardian, 12 December 1888,
p. 1899.

*Elise, History Elise, History of Vardan, critical edition, by E. Ter-

Minaseanc, Erevan, 1957. A recent English translation by S.
Boyadjian, New York, 1952; French translation in Langlois,
Historiens Armeniens, vol. ii, pp. L83-251.

Evagrius Ecclesiastical History, in six Books, tr. from the Greek

text, London, 1846. See also Bidez.

Every, Byzantine Patriarchate— — G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate
431-1204, London, 1947.

*Eznik Etc Alandoc ( Adversus Haereses), Venice, 1862. A recent

critical edition has just been published in P.O., prepared by P. L.
Maries. I have not seen it.

*Fenteglean, Koriwn G. Fenteglean, Koriwn: The Life of Mai toe.

Text established and commented by G. F. with an Introduction,
Jerusalem, 1930.

Festugiere, Antioche A. J. Festugiere, Antioche Paietme et Chretienne,

Paris, 1939.

Fortescue, Eastern Churches A. Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern

Churches, London, 19L3.

Fortescue, Armenian Church E. F. K. Fortescue, The Armenian

Church: A sketch of the History, Liturgy, Doctrine, and cere-
monies of this ancient national Church. With an appendix on
the Confession of Faith and Baptism by S. C. Malan, London,
1872.

*Gabrielean, Armenian Philosophy ■ — -H. Gabrielean, History of Ar-
menian Philosophical Thought, vol. i, Erevan, 1956.

Galanus, Conciliationis C. Galanus, Conciliationis Ecclesiae Armeniae

cum Romana, ex ipsis Armetiorum Patrum et Doctorum testimoniis, in
duos partes, historialem et controversialem divisae, Rome, 1650, 1658,
1661 (three volumes).

Galtier, Cyrille et Leon P. Galtier, St Cyrille d’Alexandrie et St Leon

le Grand a Chalcedoine, in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. i, pp.
345 - 87 -

244 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Garitte, Narratio G. Garitte, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae — Edition

critique et Commentaire, in the series “C.S.C.O.”, vol. cxxxii,
Subsidia, t. 4, Louvain, 1952.

Gibbon, Roman Empire E. Gibbon, The History oj the Decline and

Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. by J. B. Bury, 7 volumes, London,
1909-14.

Goubert, Byzance P. Goubert, Byzance avant /’ Islam, Tome I:

Byzance et I’Orient sous les successeurs de Justinien, I’Empereur
Maurice, Paris, 1951.

Goubert, Pulcherie P. Goubert, Le role de sainte Pulcherie et de

t’eunuque Chrysaphios, b Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. i, pp. 303-
21.

Goubert, Successeurs de Justinien P. Goubert, Les successeurs de Jus-

tinien et le Monophysisme b Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. ii,
pp. 179-92.

Goubert Georgk P. Goubert, Evolution politique et religieuse de

la Georgie a la fin du Vie. siecle, in Memorial Louis Petit, Bucarest,
1948.

Greenslade, Schism S. L. Greenslade, Schism in the Early Church,

London, 1933.

Gregoire, Peuple de CP H. Gregoire, Le peuple de Constantinople ou

les Bleus et les Verts, in Comptes Rendus de I’Academie des Inscriptions
et Belles Lettres, pp. 368-78, Paris, 1946.

Grousset, Histoire d'Armenie R. Grousset, Histoire de I’Armenie,

Paris, 1947.

*Hacuni, Important Problems V. Hacuni, Important Problems of

Armenian Church History, Venice, 1927.

Hamilton and Brooks, Zachariah F. I. Hamilton and E. W.

Brooks, The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene,
Engl. tr„ London, 1899.

Hayes, Ecole d’fcdesse E. R. Hayes, L'txole d’fidesse (These de doc-

tors), Paris, 1930.

HA Handes Amsorya, Armenian philological review, published by

the Armenian Mekhitarist Community in Vienna, 1887- .

Hannestad, Relations Les Relations de Byzance avec la Transcaucasie et

I'Asie centrale aux 3 e et 6 e siecles b Byzantion, t. xxv, xxvi, xxvii
(i 955 - 5 b- 57 ). PP- 421-56, Bruxelles, 1957.

Hefele, Conciles C. J. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles d’apres les docu-

ments originaux, tr. and ed. by H. Leclercq, Paris, 1907- .

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

245

Hefele, Councils C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church

from the original sources, Eng. tr., vol. iii, a.d. 431 to A,D. 451,
Edinburgh, 1883.

Honigmann, Original Lists E. Honigmann, The Original Lists of the

members of the Council of Nicaea, the Robber-Synod and the Council of
Chalcedon, in Byzantion, t. xvi (1942/43), pp. 20-80,

Honigmann, Juvenal E. Monigmarm, Juvenal of Jerusalem, in Dum-

barton Oaks Papers, 5 (1950), pp. 209-79.

Honigmann, Eveques E. Honigmann, Eviques et eveches mono-

physites d' Asie Anterieure an Vie. siecle, in the series “C.S.C.O." , vol.
cxxvii, Subsidia, t. ii, Louvain, 1951.

Hore, Orthodox Church A. H. Hore, Eighteen centuries of the Ortho-

dox Greek Church, London, 1899.

*Inglizean, Three Chapters V. Inglizean, Armenia in the midst of the

early quarrels over the Three Chapters, National Library, vol. clxxxi,
Vienna, 1957.

Inglizean, Arm. Kirche V. Inglizean, Chalkedon mid die armenische

Kirche in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. ii, pp. 361-416.

Innocentius Maroniae Innocentii Episcopi Maroniae de his qui unum

ex Trinitate Iesum Christum duhitant cotifteri, in A.C.O., t. iv, vol.
ii, pp. 68-74.

Issaverdens, Armenia -J. Issaverdens, Armenia and the Armenians, vol.

ii: Ecclesiastical History, Venice, 1877.

Jalland, Leo the Great T. G. Jalland, The Life and Times of St Leo

the Great, London, 1941.

Jalland, Church and Papacy T. G. Jalland, The Church and the Papacy :

A Historical Study, London, 1949.

Janin, Tolises Orientales R. Janin, Les f.glises Orientales et les Rites

Orientaux, Paris, 1955.

Janin, Amphiioque R. Janin, Amphiloque, art. in D.H.G.E., t. ii,

col. 1348.

Jugie, Nestorius M. Jugie, Nestorius et la controvcrse nestorienne,

Paris, 1912.

Jugie, Eutyches M. Jugie, Eutyches et Eutychianisme, art. in D.T.C.,

t. v, col. 1582-1609.

Jugie, Monophysisme M. Jugie, Monophysisme, art. in D.T.C., t. x,

col. 2216-51.

246 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Jugie, Theologia Monophysitarum M. Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica

Christianortm Orientalium ab ecclesia Catholica Dissidentum, vol. v:
De Theologia Dogmatica Nestorianorumet Monophysitarum, Paris, 1935.

Kelly, Creeds J. N, D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, London, 1950.

Kelly, Doctrines -J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, London,

1958.

Kidd, Documents -J. B. Kidd, Documents illustrative of the History of

the Church, vol. ii: a.d, 313-461, London, 1923.

Kidd, Church History -J. B. Kidd, A History of the Church, vol. iii:

a.d. 408-61, Oxford, 1922.

Kidd, Eastern Christendom J. B. Kidd, The Churches of Eastern Christ-

endom (from 43 1 to the present time), London, 1927.

King, Rites Eastern Christianity A. A. King, The Rites of Eastern

Christendom, 2 volumes, Rome, 1947.

*K‘iparean, Literature K. K'iparean, History of Armenian Literature,

pt. i: from the beginning to a.d. 1700, Venice, 1944.

*KiwIeserean, Armenian Church B. Kiwleserean, The Armenian

Church, Jerusalem, 1930.

Koriwn, The Life of St Mahoc See Abelean, Akinean, Fenteglean.

Labourt, Christ. Perse J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans I’Empire

Perse sous la dynastie Sassanide (224-632), Paris, 1904.

Langlois, Historiens Armeniens V. Langlois, Collection des Historiens

anciens et modernes d’Armenie, 2 volumes, Paris, 1867.

Lantscoot, Beth Lapat A. van Lantscoot, Beth Lapat, art. in D.H.G.E.,

col. 1233-5.

Laurent, Arm. Byz. Isl. -J. Laurent, L’ Armenia entre Byzance et

/’ Islam, depuis la conquete arabejusqu’en 886, Paris, 1919.

*Lazarean, Armenian Language S. tazarean, A Concise History of the

Armenian Language, Erevan, 1954.

Lebon, Motiophysisme Severien -J. Lebon, Le Monophysisme severien :

Etude historique, litteraire et theologique sur la resistence
monophysite au Concile de Chalcedoine jusqu’a la constitution de
l’eglise Jacobite, Louvain, 1909.

Lebon, Citations patristiques J. Lebon, Les Citations patristiques

Grecques du “ Sceau de la Foi ”, in R.H.E., t. xxx (1929), pp. 5-32.

Lebon, Les Symboles J. Lebon, Les Anciens Symboles dans la Defi-

nition de Chalcedoine, in R.H.E., t. xxxii (1936), pp. 809-76.

Lebon, Monophysisme Syrien J. Lebon, Monophysisme Syrien, in

Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. i.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS 247

Leclercq, Litt. Arm. H. Leclercq, Litterature Armenienne, art. in

D.A.C.L., t. ix, col. 1576-99.

Le Quien, Orietts Christianus M. le Quien, Orient Christianus, in

Quatttor Patriarchatus Digestis, Parisiis, 1740.

Levenq, Beth Gartnai G. Levenq, Beth Garmai, in D.H.G.E., col.

1230-3.

Liberatus Breviatum Causae Nestoriatiorum et Eutychianorum, in

P.L., t. Ixviii.

Lightfoot, Amphilochius -J. R. Lightfoot, Amphilochius, art. in

D. C.B., vol. i, p. 107.

Lightfoot, Acacius J. R. Lightfoot, Acacius, art. in D.C.B., vol. i,

p. 14.

Loofs, Nestorius F. Loofs, Nestorius and his place in the history of

Christian Doctrine, Cambridge, 1919.

Macler, Armenia F. Macler, Armenia ( Christian ), art. in Hastings

E. R.E., vol. i, pp. 802-7.

Malan, Gregory S. C. Malan, The Life and Times of S. Gregory the

Illuminator, the founder and Patron saint of the Armenian Church,
tr. from the Armenian, London, 1868.

*Malxaseanc, Xorenaci-Introduction S. Malxaseanc, Mouses Xor-

enaci: History of Armenia, translation, introduction and critical
notes, 2nd impression, Cairo, 1953. (I have used the Introduction.)

*Malxaseanc, Xorenaci-Riddle S. Malxaseanc, On the Riddle of Xor-

enaci (see Appendix III, pp. 130-44), Erevan, 1940.

*Malxaseanc, Dictionary Malxaseanc, Expository Dictionary of the

Armenian Language, 4 volumes, 2nd impression, Beirut, 1955.

*Manandean, Hellenizing School H. Manandean, The Hellenizing

School and the periods of its development in Handes Amsorya, t. xxxix
(1925), 225-32, 347-54, 539-48; t. xl (1926), 15-23, 121-9, 209-16,
305 - 13 , 437 - 45 , 525-33 ;t.xli(l927), 16-23, 109-16, 289-301,417-
425, 559-69; t. xlii (1928), 25-30, 109-20, 205-13, 303-10, 401-7.

*Manandean, Critical History H. Manandean, A Critical Survey of

the History of the Armenian people, vol ii, pt. i : From the founda-
tion of the Arsacid Kingdom in Armenia to the period of the
Marzbans (I-V centuries), Erevan, 1957.

*Man andean, Armenian Alphabet H. Manandean, On the problem

of the date of the invention of the Armenian Alphabet, in Bulletin of
the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian S.S.R., No. 7 (1952),
pp. 41-57.

248 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Mandakuni, Homilies Y. Mandakuni, Homilies (Clark'), 2nd ed-

ition, Venice, i860.

Mandakuni, Demonstration Y. Mandakuni, Demonstration of why

to confess the Saviour "Of Two Natures” or "One Nature”, B.L.,
pp. 29-40.

Maries, De Deo d’Eznik L. Maries, Le De Deo d’Eznik de Kolb,

connu sous le nom de Contre les Sectes, Etude de critique litter-
aire et textuelle, Paris, 1924.

Martin, Eglise d’Edesse -J. P. Martin, Les origines de VEglise d’Edesse

et des Eglises syriennes, Paris, 1889.

Mecerian, Bulletin Armenologique -J. Mecerian, Bulletin Armeno-

logique, in Melanges de I’Universite St Joseph, pp. 177-3 12, t. xxvii
(1947). Beirut.

Mecerian, Bilan -J. Mecerian, Bilan des relations Armeno-lraniennes

an Ve. siecle, in Bulletin Armenologique, 2me. cahier. See Melanges de
I’Universite St Joseph, t. xxx (1953), Beirut.

*Melik‘-Basxean, Paulician Movement S. Melik ‘-Basxean, The Paul-

iciati Movement in Armenia, University publication, Erevan, 1953.

*Melik‘set‘-Bek, Georgian Sources L, Melik‘set‘-Bek, The Georgian

Sources on Armenia and the Armenians (translations of Georgian
documents concerning the history of Armenia — 3 volumes), vol.
i: V-XII centuries, Erevan, 1934.

*Melik‘t‘angean, Canon Law N. Melik Yangean, The Canon Law of

the Armenian Church, Introduction and Sources, Shoushi, 1903.

Michael Syrus See Chabot.

Moeller, Ve. Concile C. Moeller, Le Ve. concile cecumenique et le

magistere ordinaire au Vie. siecle, in Rev. S.Ph.Th., t. xxxv(i9Si),
pp. 413 - 32 .

Moeller, Neo-Chalcedonisme C. Moeller, Le Chalcedonistne et le

Neo-Chalcedonisme en Orient de 45 1 d la fin du Vie. siecle, in Das
Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. i, p. 637-720.

Mozley, Libanius -J. R_. Mozley, Lilanius, art. in D.C.B., vol. iii,

pp. 709-12.

Murphy, Peter speaks through Leo F. X. Murphy, Peter Speaks

Through Leo: The Council of Chalcedon, Washington, 1952.

Narses, Trois Docteurs Narses, Homelie de Narses sur les Trois

Docteurs Nestoriens, ed. and tr. by Abbe F. Martin, in Journal
Asiatique, 9me. serie, t. xiv (1899), pp. 446-92 (intr. and text), t. xv
(1900), pp. 469-525 (translation).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

249

Nau, Heraclide F. Nau, Nestorius: “Le Livre d’Heraclide de Damas’’

(French translation), Paris, 1910.

Nau, Acace F. Nau, Acace, art. in D.H.G.E., t. i, col. 244.

Neale, Eastern Church -J. M. Neale, A History of the Holy

Eastern Church, pt. i: General Introduction (2 volumes), London,
1850.

Nersoyan, Doctrinal Position T. Nersoyan, The Doctrinal position of

the Armenian Church (a paper), New York.

Neve, Armenie Chretienne F. Neve, L’ Armenie Chretienne et sa

Litterature , Louvain, 1888.

Nicolas, Christologie de St Leon M.-J. Nicolas, La Doctrine christo-

logique de saint Leon, in Revue Thomiste, 1951, pp. 609-60.

*Ormanean, Azgapatum M. Ormanean, Azgapatum: History of the

Armenian Nation (3 volumes), vol. i, Constantinople, 1913.

Ormanean, Armenian Church M. Ormanean, The Church of Ar-

menia, tr. by M. Gregory, 2nd edition by T. Poladian, London,
1954 -

Pargoire, Eglise Byzantine P. J. Pargoire, L’Eglise Byzantine de 3 27 a

847, Paris, 1905.

*P‘arpeci Lazar P‘arpeci (Lazar of Pharbi), History of Armenia and

the letter to Vahan Mamikonean, crit. edition by G. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean
and S. Malxaseanc in the series “Armenian Historiographers”,
Tiflis, 1904. (I have used also the Venice edition.)

Peeters, Origines P. Peeters, Pour I'histoire des origines de I’alphabet

armenien, in Revue des Etudes armeniennes, t. ix (1929), pp. 203-38.
Reprinted in Recherches d’histoire et de philologie orientales (2 vol-
umes) in the series “Subsidia Hagiographica” (No. 27), vol. i,
pp. 171-207, Bruxelles, 1951.

Peeters, Jeremie P. Peeters, Jeremie eveque de I'lberie Perse, in Analecta

Bollandiana, vol. li (193 3), pp. 5-25.

Peeters, Rabboula P. Peeters, La vie de Rabboula, eveque d’Edesse, in

Rech. S.R., t. xviii(i928), pp. 170-204.

Peeters, Jacques P. Peeters, La legende de saint Jacques de Nisibe, in

Analecta Bollandiana, t. xxxviii (1920), pp. 285-373.

Petit, Armenie L. Petit, Armenie, in D.T.C., t. i, col. 1888-1968.

Photius, Letter to Zachariah, in Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Fotija, St
Petersbourg, 1892. I have not seen the book. The extract of the
letter is reproduced in Garitte, Narratio.

Photius, Bibliotheca See Migne, P.G., t. ciii.

250 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Prestige, Fathers and Heretics G. L. Prestige, Fathers and Heretics:

six studies in Dogmatic Faith with prologue and epilogue (Bamp-
ton Lectures, 1940), London, 1954.

Ramsay, Asia Minor W. M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of

Asia Minor, London, 1890.

Ramsay, Church Rom. Emp. W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the

Roman Empire before a.d. 170, 9th ed., London, 1907.

Richard, Proclus M. Richard, Proclus de Constantinople et le Theo-

paschisme in R.H.E., t. xxxviii (1942), pp. 303-31.

Richard, Fragments M. Richard, La tradition des fragments du traite

rrepl rrjs ivavBpcmrrjoeurs de Theodore de Mopsueste, in Le Museon,

t.lvi (1943), pp. 55-75-

Richard, Neo-Chalcedonisme M. Richard, Le Neo-Chalcedonisme,

in Mel. S.R., t. iii {1946), pp. 156-61.

Richard, Acace M. Richard, Acace de Melitene, Proclus de Constanti-

nople et la Grande Armenie, in Memorial Louis Petit — Melanges
d’histoire et d’archeologie Byzantines (Archives de l’Orient Chretien) ,
Bucarest, 1948.

Rouzi£s, Acace U. Rouzies, Acace, art. in D.H.G.E., t. i, col. 242-3.

Rycaut, Greek, Arm. Churches P. Rycaut, The present state of the

Greek and Armenian Churches, London, 1679.

Salaville, Henotique S. Salaville, L' Affaire de Y Henotique ou le premier

schisme byzantin au Ve. siecle, in Echos d’Orient, t. xviii (1918), pp.
255 - 66 , 389 - 97 . t- xix (1920), pp. 49-68.

*Sargisean, Mandakuni B. Sargisean, Critical study on John Manda-

kuni and his writings, Venice, 1895.

Scher, Histoire Nestorienne Histoire Nestorienne ( Chronique de Seen),

tr. from the Arabic text by Mgr A. Scher, in P.O., t. iv (1906-8),
pp. 215-3 12, t. vii (1911), pp. 97-203.

Sellers, Chalcedon R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon; A his-

torical and doctrinal survey, London, 1953.

Simeon Beth-Arsam, Epistola Epistola Beth-Arsamensis de Barsauma

espiscopo Nisibeno, deque heresi Nestorianorum in Assemani, Bibl.
Orient., vol. i, pp. 346-58.

Simon, Chretiens Orientaux R. Simon, Histoire critique des dogmes,

des coutumes et des ceremonies des Chretiens Orientaux, Trevoux,
1711.

Stanley, Eastern Church A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the history of the

Eastern Church, London, 1889.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

251

Stein, Bas-Empire E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire. De la dispar-

ities de l’Empire d’Occident a la mort de Justinien, 476-565,
t. ii, Belgium, 1949.

Sullivan, Christology F. Sullivan, The Christology of Theodore of

Mopsuestia, in the series of Analecta Gregoriana, vol. lxxxii, Rome,
1956 .

Tallon, Livre des Lettres M. Tallon, Livre desLettres (Girk‘ T‘lt‘oc),

Ter. groupe: Documents concemant les relations avec les Grecs,
extract from Melanges de I'Universite St Joseph, t. xxxii (1955),
Fasc. i, pp. 1-146, Beyrouth, 1955.

Tamarati, Eglise Gecrgienne M. Tamarati, L’Eglise Georgienne des

originesjusqu’anosjours, Rome, 1910.

Tcheraz, Egl. Arm. M. Tcheraz, L’Eglise armenienne, son histoire, ses

croyances, in Le Muse on, 1897, pp. 232-42, 324-9.

Tekeyan, Controverses Christologiques P. Tekeyan, Controverses

Christologiques en Armeno -Glide dans la seconde moitie du XII siecle
(1165-1198), in the series Analecta Christiana Orientalia, vol.
cxxiv, Rome, 1939.

Ter-Mikelean, Arm. Kirche A. Ter-Mikelean, Die Armenische

Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zur hyzantinischen, vcm IV. bis zum
XIII. Jahrhundert, Jena, 1892. (I have used the Armenian version
published in the same year in Moscow.)

Ter-Minaseanc, Arm. Kirche E. Ter-Minassiantz, Die armenische

Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den syrischen Kirchen bis zum aide
des 13. fahrhunderts, in the series Texte und Untersuchungen, vol.
xxvi, Leipzig, 1904. (I have used the Armenian edition made by
the author himself and enriched with further additions, Ejmiacin,
1908.)

*Ter-Minaseanc, Nestorianism E. Ter-Minaseanc, Nestorianism in

Armenia, in Literary and Philological Researches, vol. i, pp. 175-242,
Erevan, 1946.

*Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Timothy G. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, The date of the Ar-

menian translation of Timothy Aelurus Refutation and the third
Armenian translation of the Holy Scriptures, in Ararat , 1908, pp.
564-89.^

*Ter-Mkrtc ean, Paulikianer K. Ter-Mkrttschian, Die Paulikianer

im hyzantinischen Kaiserreiche und verwandte Ketzerische Erschein-
ungen in Armenien, Leipzig, 1893. (I have used the Armenian trans-
lation made by A. Abelean and published in Jerusalem, 1938.)

252 COUNCIL OF CHAICEDON AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

*Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Christ’s Nature K. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Our view and

the view of Mekhitarist Fathers concerning the problem oj Christ’s
Nature, in Ararat, 1896, pp. 155-64.

*Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Participation K. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Babgen Catholicos

and the first participation ofi the Armenian Church in the doctrinal con-
troversies, in Ararat, 1 898, pp. 43 1-46.

Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Misunderstandings K. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, Misunder-

standings about the past history of the Armenian Church, in Ararat,
1902, pp. 807-34.

*Ter~Mkrtc‘ean, Mandakuni K. Tcr-Mkrtc‘ean, John Mandakuni

and John Mayragomed (extract from Solakat ') Ejmiarin, 1913.

*Tcr-Mkrtc‘ean, Seal ofi Faith, Introduction K. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, The

'‘Seal ofi Faith”, edition of the text, with a remarkable Introduc-
tion, Ejmiadn, 1914.

* Thomas Arcruni History of the House of Arcrunik', Constantinople,

1852.

Thorossian, Litterature H. Thorossian, Histoire de la Litterature

armenienne, des originesjusqu’a nos jours, Paris, 1951.

*Timothy Aelurus Refutation ofi the Definitions ofi the Council ofi

Chalcedon, ed. by Ter-Mkrtc‘ean and E. Ter-Minaseanc, Ejmiacin,
1908.

Tisserant, Jacques E. Tisserant, Jacques de Nisibe, art. in D.T.C.,

t. viii, col. 292-5.

Tisserant, Narsai E. Tisserant, Narsai, Fundateur de l’ fie ole de Nisibe,

art. in D. T.C., t. xi, col. 26-30.

Tisserant, Nestorienne E. Tisserant, Nestorienne ( Vfiglise ), art. in

D.T.C., t. xi, col. 157-263.

Tixeront, Dogmes J. Tixeront, Histoire des Dogmes dans l’ Anti quite

Chretienne, vol. iii: La Fin de l’ age Patristique (430-800), Paris, 1928.

Tixeront, figlise d’Edesse -J. Tixeront, Les origines de I’figlise d’fdesse

et la legende d’Abgar, Paris, 1888.

T‘op‘cean, Am. Monchtum Die Anfiange des armenischen Monchtums. (I

have seen the Armenian translation in Luys, Nos. 15, 19, 22.

Toumebize, Histoire F. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de

V Armenie, Paris, 1900.

Tournebize, Armenie F. Toumebize, Armenie, art. in D.H.G.E.,

vol. iv.

Vailhe, fglise Armenienne S. Vailhe, Formation de I’Fglise Arme-

nienne, in Echos d’ Orient, t. xvi (1913), pp. 109-22, 193-21 1.

bibliographical abbreviations

253

*Vardanean, Proclus A. Vardanean, The Letter of Bishop Proclus to

St Sahak the Armenian Catholicos and to St Maltoc, in HA, t. xxxv
(1921), col. 1-25.

Vasiliev, Byzantine Empire A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine

Empire, 2 volumes, Madison, 1958.

Vasiliev, Justin A. A. Vasiliev, Justin the First. An introduction to the

epoch of Justinian the Great (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, i), Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1950.

Venables, Ibas E. Venables, Ibas, art. in D.C.B., vol. ii, pp. 192-6.

Vine, Ncstoriau Churches A. R. Vine, The Nestorian Churches: A

concise history of Nestorian Christianity in Asia from the Persian
Schism to the modern Assyrians, London, 1937.

Voobus, Syrian Asceticism A. Voobus, History of Asceticism in the

Syrian Orient, vol. i : The. origin of Asceticism; Early Monasticism in
Persia, in the series C.S.C.O., vol. clxxxiv, Subsidia, t. 4, Louvain,
1958 .

Weber, Arm. Kirche S. Weber, Die katholische Kirche in Armenian,

Freiburg im Breisgau, 1903.

Weber, Hatschachapatum S. Weber u. E. Sommer, Ausgewdhlte

Reden aus dem Hatschachapatum (5. Jahrhundert) hi. Mesrop, in the
Ausgewdhlte Schriften der armenischen Kirchenvdter, ed. by S. Weber,
vol. i, pp. 233-318. See Introduction. Published in the series Bib-
liothek der Kirchenvater, Bd. 37, Munchen, 1927.

Wigram, Doctrinal Position W. A. Wigram, The Doctrinal Position

of the Assyrian or East Syrian Church, London, 1908.

Wigram, Assyr. Church W. A. Wigram, An Introduction to the

History of the Assyrian Church or the Church of the Sassanid Persian
Empire, London, 1910.

Wigram, Separation W. A. Wigram, The Separation of the Mono-

phy sites, London, 1923.

Williams, Armenians G. Williams, Armenians, art. in D.C.B., vol. i,

pp. 163-6.

*Xorenaci, History M. Xorenaci, The Writings of Mouses Xoren-

naci, Venice, 1865.

*Xorenaci ( Treatise ) of the Blessed Bishop Mouses Xorenaci, the great

Rhetor, see B.L., pp. 22-8.

*Yacaxapatum The Homilies of St Gregory, Venice, 1830.

Zachariah, Chronicle See Hamilton and Brooks.

INDEX OF PROPER. NAMES

Abdi&ty, Bp, 214

Abel (Armenian priest), 130, I3if,
13 8-42; identified with Koriwn, 140
Abgar, King, 78
Abraham, 137

Abraham, Catholicos of the Armenians
(607-15), 206

Acacius, Bp of Amida, 89, 224
Acarius, Bp of Melitene, 4n, II, 16,
94, ioaf, hi, 130, 132, 135, 199,
201, 204, 208, 209; condemned by
Rome, 53; letter to Sahak, I13ff;
letter to the Armenians, 116-19;
letters to Sahak and the naxarark 1 ,
i35ff; theory that he altered Proclus’
Tome, 146

Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople
{471-89), 5i

Aelurus, Timothy, see Timothy
Aelurus

Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople,
219f

Agat‘angelos, 174; Teaching of St
Gregory , i75ff
Akak the Persian, 9
Alexander of Hierapolis, 37n
Alowank, Catholicos of, see Sow-
phalese

Ambrosius, 204

Ampelis, Bp of Cherson, 203f, 205;

identity questioned, 234
Ampbilochius of Side, 234
Anastasius, Emperor (491-518), 9, 10,
45, 52, 207, 208

Anatolis of Constantinople, 20jff;

identity questioned, 234f
Anatolius, Bp of Constantinople,
formula of, 3iff, 3511, 43n
Anatolius, Governor, 225, 226

Andrew, Bp of Samosata, 3711, 223
Anjevafi, Xosrov, 3n
Anjn, 118; identity doubtful, 231
Apollinarius of Laodicea, 156, 183,
i88n, 194, 21 S
Arcruni, Thomas, i6if
Aristakes, 83, 200, 205
Aristotle, 168

Arms of Alexandria, 17, 123, 13 1, 156,

203, 204

ArJak III, King of Byzantine Armenia,
67

Arsen Catholicos Saparafi (of the
Georgians), 166, 181
ArtaSes, King of Armenia, 105
Artasir I, King of Persia, 64
Arzan (Arm or Arznarziwn), 16 1
Athanasius of Alexandria, 155, 19 j, 204
Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople,
103, 204, 225
Axa the priest, 198

Babal, Catholicos of Persian Church
(497-502), 16, 200, 204, 208, 209
Babgen, Catholicos (490-516), 8, 9,
150; first “Letter from the Armen-
ians”, 197-202, 209; second “Letter
from the Armenians”, 202-s, an,
212

Babilas, Bp of Edessa, 89, 224

Barhdbraeus, 2ion, 233

Barsauma, 9, n, 16, i6off, 199, 201,

204, 208, 209, 215
Bartholomew, St, 76

Basil the Great, St, 83, 125, 155, 165,
204

Basil the deacon, 130, 145
Basiliscus, Emperor (475-6), 45
Beit-Arda 5 ir (Seleuda), 198

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

256

Beit-Garmal, 198
Beit-Lapat, 19911
Biwzandaci, P'awstos, 66
Brk’isoy, 106

Celestine I, Pope, $7
Cherson, 234f
Chrysaphios the eunuch, 25
Ctesiphon, 198
Cubricus, see Mani

Cyril, Bp of Alexandria, 2711, 36, 1 19,
155, 165, I93n, 195, 205; death
(444), 37n, 112; Twelve Anathe-
matisms (Chapters), 204, 212, 222,
233; letter to Nestorius, 219, to
John of Antioch, 219, to Acacius of
Melitene, 220, 231, to Sahak and
MaStop (questioned), 231, to Rab-
boula, 231; Reunion Act (433), 222;
concerned in Proclus’ Tome, 231;
refutation of Theodore of Mop-
suestia, 54; attitude to Nestorianism,
380; as “authority” for Chalce-
donian doctrine, 219-23 ; judged in
Henolicon, 31; influence on Pastern
Christianity, 52; consistency of his
teaching, 222
Cyril of Jerusalem, 155

Daniel the Syrian, 83, 88, 90, 96
David the Invincible, 163
Diocletian, Emperor (284-305), I35n
Diodore of Tarsus, 38, 42, 60, 129,
201, 203, 204, 209, 215; name in
Armenian easily confused with
Theodore, 229

Dioscorus, 7, 13, 27, 28, 29, 33

Edessa: early foothold of Christianity,
77f; visited by Mastop, 89; School
of Edessa, 38, 92, 96, translations of
Nestorian authors, 42, closure by
Zeno, i6of
Ejmiacin, 9
Elise, 4n, 70n
Ephraim Syrus, 166
Epiphanius, 83n

Erechtheus, Bp of Antioch in Pisidia,
i<35

Eunomius, 123, 131
Eusebius, Bp ofDorylaeum, 33n
Eutyches, 7m 13, 17, 35, J6, 156, 170,
203, 204, 211, 215
Evagrius, 221

Eznik of Kolb, 95, 104, 140, i74f, 194;
letter to Mastop, 227

Flavian, Bp of Constantinople, 56

Gabriel, Catholicos of the Georgians,
9, 11, 206
Gadisoy, 153
Galanus, Clement, 6ff
Garmikan, see Beit-Garmai
Giwt, Catholicos (461-78), i52ff, 163,
170, 172

Gowntsapuh. see Beit-Lapat
Gregory of Nazianzus, 125, 166, 177,
204

Gregory of Neocaesarea, 166, 204
Gregory of Nyssa, 204
Gregory Parthev (“the Illuminator’'),
8, 79, 83, 100, 152, 155, 157, 1740,
i77n; consecrated at Caesarea, 81;
in Sebastia, 81

Hon, 1 18; identity doubtful, 231
Hrowp’anos, see Rufmus

Ibas, Bp of Edessa, 37n, 40, 54, 55, 96,
201, 225, 226; condemned at second
Council of Ephesus, 43 ; rehabilitated
at Chalcedon, 42f
Ignatius of Antioch, 204
Innocentius Maroniae, 38n, I29ff, 138,
229f

John of Antioch, 36, 119
John Chrysostom, 165, 204
John of Germanicia, 43n
Julian of Halicarnassus, 216
Julius of Rome, 165, 204
Justin, Emperor (518-27), 45
Justinian, Emperor (527—65), 45, 53 f,
214

index of proper names

257

Juvenal, Bp of Jerusalem, 49

Kawad, King of Persia, i97f, 307, 208,
210

K’ert’ol, Vrt’anes, 30
Kiwrion, Catholicos of the Georgians,
206

Komitas, Catholicos (615-28), 3n,

l8lf, 215

Koriwn, 87 f, 104, 128; journey with
Leontius, 140

Koth, 118; identity doubtful, 231
Kowmbrikos, see Mani
K’rt’enavor, Teodoros, 311

Leo, Pope, 41. See also Index of
Subjects for Leo’s Tome
Leo, Emperor (457-74), 45
Leontius (Armenian priest), ro2, 104,
i3off, 138-42, 144ft identified with
Levond, 140; Leontius’ and Abel’s
letter to Proclus, 13 if
Leontius of Byzantium, 194
Levond, 7on, 140
Libanius, 95
Liberatus, 380, 94, 131
Lousaworic 1 , see Gregory Parthev

Macedon (the heretic), 17, 123
Mamikonean, Vahan, 71, 150
Mamikonean, Vard, 202, 212
Mamikonean, Vardan, yon
Manazkertayi, Melite, isiflf
Manazkertayi, Movses, I5itf
Mandakuni, Yovhan (John), i6f, 1648,
172, 175; Homilies, I78flf, 232;

Demonstration, 186-9$

Mani, 156, 199, 201
Mara the scribe, 198
Marcian, Emperor (450-7), 23, 2${

Mari the Persian, 370, 43, 226
Mast of, St Mesrop, 85, 135; death
(440), 148; formation of Armenian
alphabet, 88-93 1 relationship with
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 93-6;
attitude to Theodore, 139-42; rela-
tionship with Ibas, 96; position on

Antiochene doctrine, 1 03; received
letters and canons from Ephesus,
129; letter of Sahak and Mastoy to
Proclus, 12 j-8 ; journey to Constanti-
nople, i02f; encounters on journey
to East Syria, 22 3 if
Mayragomeyi, Yovhan (John), 3/1,
232f

Mersapuh, prince of the Arcrunik, 161
Merlapuh, Bp of Taron, 202, 212
Meruzan (Armenian Prince), 84, 91
Michael Syrus, 162, 2lon, 234
Alihr-Narseh, 69
Mika, 199
Mokk‘, 161
Moses, r82

Movses, 157; identified with Xorenayi,
I 58 n

Movses Xorenayi, see Xorenaci,
Movses

Narekayi, Anania, 311
Nerses Astarakeyi, 6 , I2f, 15
Nerses of Bagrevand (548-57), 2i4f
Nerses the Great (353-73), 82, 83, 100,
i57

Nerses Lambronayi, 3n
Nerses Snorhali, 3n
Nestorius, 17, 31, 35, 60, 117, 156,
201, 203f, 209, 21 1, 215; opinion of
Leo’s Tome, 5<5fF; mere “spokes-
man” of Nestorianism, 39; books
destroyed, 124, 228; condemned at
Ephesus, 39, at Chalcedon, 39;
deprived of episcopacy, 113; in
exile, 36, 39; death, 5811
Nisibis, i6of

Ojneyi, Yovhan, 3n
Orbetean, Step’anos, 3n
Osrohene, 78

Paktda, Bp of Edessa, 224
Papa, Bp of Beit-Lapat, 208
P'arpeyi, Lazar, 67n, 87f, 91, 149, 152;
letter to Vahan Mamikonean, 154-

157, 170

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

258

Paschasinus, 28f
Paul, St, II7f, 123S 191, 201
Paul, Bp of Samosata, 60, 199, 201,
203 f

Pequida, see Paklda
Pero?, King of Persia, I53f, i6of
Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch,
11, H7n, 181

Philoxenos of Mabboug, 167, i69f,
208n

Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople
(810-95), 93> letter to Zacharias, 166
Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople,
4n, hi, 130, 205. See also Index of
Subjects for Proclus* Tome
Proterius, 4911

Pulcheria, Empress, 23, 25, 41

Rabboula, Bp of Edessa, 3 711, 42, 94,
130, 132, 135, 224, 230
Rufinus, a calligrapher of Samosata,
89, 224

Sahak, Catholicos (“the Great’’), 4n,
88, pof, 98-101, hi, I37f, 157, 182,
225 ; letter to Acacius, njf; letter of
Sahak and Mastof to Proclus, 125-8;
reply to Proclus “a fabrication”,
232; knowledge of Council of
Ephesus, 129, 226ff; attitude to
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 139-42;
translations of Scriptures and Church
Fathers, 232; mastery of Greek,
232; deposed, 105; reinstated, 107;
died (439), 148
Samosata, 89

Samuel (Persian monk), 198, 200, 202
Samuel (Smuel), Catholicos, 106
Sembat (Armenian Prince), 105
Sergis, 202

Severus of Antioch, 181, 194, 2i5f
Shapuh II, King of Persia, 84
Shapuh III, King of Persia, 67
Simon of Bcit-Arsam, 18, 198, 200,
202, 205, 207m 209, 210 and n, 211,
233t 236

Siwne^i, Petros, 3n

Siwnefi, Step’anos, 3n
Smawon, see Simon of Beit-Arsam
Smuel, Catholicos, 106
SoStri (Shoshder or Schouster), 202
Sowphalese, Catholicos of Alowank,
11

Sozomen, 8311

Surmak, Catholicos, I05f

Syrus, Michael, see Michael Syrus

T‘argmani£‘, Xosrovik, 3n
Taron, 20211
Taronefi, Polos, 3n
Tat’evayi, Grigor, 3n
Thaddeus, St, 76

Theodore, Bp of Mopsuestia, 9, 37f,
42, 54, 1 12, ii7f, 127, I30ff, 18911,
201, 204, 209, 215; influence in
Armenia, 94; Armenian translations
of, l32ff; his following in Armenia,
136-42; writings destroyed, 115,
124; banned from Armenia, I28f;
relationship with Maltoc, 93-6;
name in Armenian easily confused
with Diodore, 229

Theodoret, Bp of Cyrus, 3 7C 54f, 60,
2or, 203^ 215, 220; at Chalcedon,
4off; reinstated, 42
Theodosius I, Emperor (379-95), 67
Theodosius II, Emperor (408-50), 25,
225

Theophilus of Alexandria, 205
Thomas the Apostle, 192
Timothy Aelurus, 59C 181, 195, 20511;
exile to Cherson, 234f; Armenian
translation of his Refutation, 165-70
Tiridates III, King of Armenia, 64, 65,
82

Tisbon, see Ctesiphon

Vahan Mamikonean, see Mamikonean,
Vahan

Vard Mamikonean, see Mamikonean,
Vard

Vardan Mamikonean, see Mamikonean ,
Vardan

Vardan, 102, 105

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

259

Vehrartajir, see Beit-Arda&r
Vigil, Pope, 54f
Vram V, King of Persia, 105
Vramshapouh, King of Armenia, 88,
96

Xorenaci, Movses, 69, 84, 8yf, 91,
ior, 105, 129, 154, i57ff, i64f;
Treatise, 180-6, i88n
Xosrov JV, King of Persian Armenia,
67, 91, roof
Xosrovik, 157

Xuzistan, 202

Yazdad, Bp of Rew-Ardasir, 208
Yazdgard II, King of Persia, 69, 149
Yohanan, 199

Yovsep 1 , Catholicos, 104, 148, 151

Zachariah, Chronicle of, 4311
Zamasp, King of Persia, 208
Zeno, Emperor {474-91), 8, 10, 45,
160. See also Index of Subjects for
Henoticon of Zeno

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Acacian Schism,52f
Acephali, the, 7
Adoptionism, I14n
Albanian Church, 198, 201, 207
Alexandrian bishops at Chalcedon,
29f. 49

Alexandrian christology, see Cyrilline
christology

Alexandrian School: relation to Antio-
chene before fifth century, 109
Antiochene christology, 27, 29, 31;

upheld at Chalcedon, 56
Antiochene School: support for Nes-
torius, 36; relation to Alexandrian
before fifth century, 109
Arianism, 31, 194

Armenian alphabet: invention, 4, 68,
85-90; date of invention, 86, 95;
invention “by the help of God”,
225; Syriac and Greek aspects, 109;
discouraged in Byzantine Armenia,
102

Armenian Church: relations with
other Churches, 2, 5, with Syrian
Church, 15, with Roman Church,
i7f, with Georgian and Albanian
Churches, 207; divided sympathies
with Rome and Persia, 67; contact
with Byzantium, 104 ; relations with
Alexandria, no; independent ortho-
dox tradition, 72ff; Greek and Syriac
traditions in early Christianity, 80,
during fifth century, 108; the Syriac
tradition, 98 ; overshadowed by
Greek after fifth century, 108;
contact with Greek Christian culture,
135; list of heretics denounced, 204,
of Fathers of the Church accepted,
204f; adherence to Cappadocian

Fathers, 156; the Antiochene tradi-
tion, 102, its influence questioned,
93; adherence to Cyrilline christo-
logy, 195, 209, 212, to Council of
Ephesus, 104, no, 147, to Hetwticon,
212 ; consequences of Proclus’ Tome,
147; influence of Syrian tnono-
physites, 167, i69f; opposed to
Nestorianism, 7 4, 143, 164, 201,
212; attempts at Nestorianization of,
161-4, 17X, l89n; threat of Nestor-
ianism in early sixth century, 208;
rejection of Chalcedon and Nestor-
ianism, 172; supposed ignorance of
Chalcedonian controversy refuted,
1 5of, 164-70; rejection of Chalcedon,
date of, I3ff, at Dowin, 21 iff, not an
acceptance of Eutyches’ teaching,
2 1 1, a natural consequence of anti-
Dyophysitism, 210, a prolonged
process of thought, 20, 196, reasons
for, 6-14, apparently political, 73;
doctrinal position before Council of
Chalcedon, $f, 71 f, in fifth to sixth
centuries, 171, at time of rejection of
Chalcedon, 174-95, officially de-
clared in sixth century, 210; effects
of the Chalcedonian problem since
508, 214; developments in sixth to
seventh centuries, 2i4f; apostolic
origins considered, 76-9; cleared of
pagan survivals, 148; resistance
under Persian rule, 72, 74; effects
of deaths of St Sahak and St Mastof ,
1 57f; monastic life, 82f; participa-
tion of laity, 20 $n

Armenian history: “perpetual war",
1 ; relations with Byzantine Empire,
2; autonomyinfirsttofifth centuries.

262

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Armenian History (ctd.)

62f, 6jf; conflict between Kingdom
and Principalities, 66; partition
(387/390?), 4. 62, 67f; fall of
Arsacid Kingdom (428), 68; ap-
pointment of the Marzban, 68 ;
“Golden Age” of fifth century, 4,
99, 168; Persian persecution, 172;
resistance to Persian policy, 70,
I49f; political autonomy recovered
(485). 7I> 172; first contacts with
Christianity, 77ft expansion of
Christianity in second to third
centuries, 79f; conversion to Chris-
tianity (301?), 64n, 6s, 79, 81;
conflict of paganism and Christianity,
66f; oscillation between East and
West in first to fifth centuries, 62-5 ;
twofold basis of culture, 63; the
Syriac tradition, 69, predominant
after partition, 9off; relations with
Greek Christian culture, 73 ; Greek
and Syriac streams in early Chris-
tianity, 80-5, in fifth century, 107;
increased tension between two tradi-
tions in fifth century, 154
Armenian language': one word for
“nature” and “person”, iof; hel-
lenization, 168, 180, 186
Armenian theological literature, 1, 2f,
4, r6; chief works before rejection of
Chalcedon listed, I74f, described,
175-80; in sixth to eighth centuries,
2l6f

Armenian Uniate Church, i8n
Arsacid Dynasty in Armenia, 62;
abolished, 68

Arsacid Kingdom of Persia, 4, 63f, 67
Avarayr, battle of (451), 4, 70, 149

Book of Letters, 3n, 14, mn
Byzantine Church, 2
Byzantine Empire: relations with

Armenia, 62, 64; religious policies,
25, 38, 45, 48, 50, 58; involved in
post-Chalcedonian conflict, 45f; op-
position to Chalcedonian doctrine, 46

Cappadocian Fathers, 177, 19s
Chalcedon, Council of: convened by
Marcian, 25 ; findings confirmed by
Marcian, 26; judged in Henolicon,
51 ; as understood in fifth and sixth
centuries, 24; claimed in support by
Nestorians, 2iof; associated with
Nestorianism, 8, i6f, 54, 159, 172,
203 ; Nestorian elements, 3 j-43 ;
importance to Armenia, 1 ; rejection
by Armenia, see also Armenian
Church, 5-14, 17, 21, 2llff; im-
portance to Eastern Church, 5, 23;
opponents and supporters within
Eastern Church, 55f; attitude of
Byzantine Empire, 46, 171, of

Rome, 52-5; a victory for Rome?,
52; Roman legates at, 27, 31-4;
numbers attending, 23; condemna-
tion ofEutyches, 35, of Nestorius, 35
Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian
Churches: hope of reconciliation,
2I7f

Chalcedonian Definition, 12, 33; as-
sociated with Nestorianism, 14;
attributed to Pope Leo, 35n; uneasy
reception by Eastern Church, 49
Chalcedonian doctrine: as understood
in fifth and sixth centuries, 20;
“plainly dyophysite”, 223; refuted
in fifth century Armenian writings,
164-7; known to Mandakuni, i94f
Christ’s Person and Nature(s), see also
Incarnation: unity, 2f, to, 114,
120-3, I76f, 179, 182, i9off; duality,
9, 12, 116, 118, 126, 172, 184-7, 200
Circus factions, 25

Constantinople: first Council of (381),
74, 201, 204; second Council of (553),
54f. 59, 221

Councils, see also Chalcedon, Con-
stantinople, Ephesus, Nicaea
Councils: of Berytus (Beirut), 43; of
Tyr (Tyre), 43 ; of Sahapivan, I48f;
held by Barsauma at Beit-Lapat
(484), 199, 208; held by Acacius in
Seleucia (486), 160, I99n, 208; held

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

263

by Baba! in Seleucia (497), 199(1,
208; held by Babgen at Valarsapat
(491?), 9, uf, 15, (506), 150; held by
Babgen at Dowin (506), i6f, 197;
doctrinal importance of Dowin,
206 f, 209; first official rejection of
Chalcedon at Dowin, 2i2f; held by
Nerses Astarakefi at Dowin (552?),
6, 8, 12, 15, 167, 170
Creed of Nicaea, 1170, 125, 188, I9if,
200

Cyrilline (Alexandrian) christology,
27, 29, 3 1 ; dominance after Ephesus,
56; a heresy to the Nestorians, 156;
the “standard” for Eastern theo-
logians, 220

Didascalia 318 Patrum Nicaenorum, 125
"Diocese of Orient”, I35n
Dualism, see Nestorianism

“Economy”, doctrine of, i22n
Ephesus; Council of (431), 74, H2f,
204; approved in Henoticon, 51; as
peak of Alexandrian influence, 27;
condemnation of Separatism or
Dualism, 3 1 ; second Council of
(449), 40, 160, 223

Eschatological hope, doctrine of, 176

Fathers of the Church: those followed
by Armenian Church named, 204f;
see also Index of Proper Names for
individual Fathers

Georgian Church, 2, 198, 201, 207;
acceptance of Chalcedon in seventh
century, 2o6n; controversy with
Armenian Church in seventh cen-
tury, 215

Girk' T'lt'oc, see Book of Letters
Greek Church, 198, 201
Greek literature translated into
Armenian, 168
Greek science, i82f
Greek tradition in Armenia, 80-3 ;
dominant after fifth century, 108

“Hellenizing School”, i68f, 186

Henoticon of Zeno, 9, 12, rdff, 490,
161, 171, 204, 207ff, 212; main
points listed, 5 if; designed by
Acacius, 51; recognized by Byzan-
tine Empire, 52; opposed by Rome,
52

Heretics: names of those anathematized
by Armenian Church, 204; Eutyches
added, 211; Severus added, 215

Incarnation, 115, 118, 120, 122, 126,
176-9, 183, 186, 189^ 192, 203

Knik' Havatoy, see Seal of Faith

Leo’s Tome, 11, 14, 2jf, 12m, 19m,
194*“; terminology, 29, 35, 50, 52,
offensive to Monophysites, 60; as-
sociated with Cyrilline christology,
219; debated at Chalcedon, 28-34;
defended by Council of Chalcedon
34; approved by Nestorius, s6-6o;
opposition to, 300; as Regula Fidei,
28, 32

Levondeank, the, 7on

Manichaeanism, 156

Marzban, the: appointed, 68 ; participa-
tion in Church affairs, 205

Mazdaean persecutions in Armenia, 4,
8, ro

Mazdaism, 66, 84, 95, 154

Messalianism, I48f, ij6n

Monasticism, Greek and Syriac, 82f

Monophysitism, 12, 23, 3Jn; defined,
46n; in Mesopotamia, 49f; in
Persia, 200 and n, 207f; Syrian, 18,
49, 167, 170; attitude of Mono-
physites to Chalcedonian doctrine,
47-60; Council of Nicaea as auth-
ority, 212; expansion in reign of
Zeno, 160; dominance in Eastern
Christianity, 46f, 51; favoured by
Armenian Church since Ephesus,
209; disputes among Monophysite
Churches, 215; doctrine of
“economy”, i22n

index of subjects

264

Monothelite controversy, 216

Nanatio de rebus Armeniae, 166

Naxarark’ (Feudal Princes), 68, 69, 71,
84, 99f, iosff, hi, 137, 203; letter
from Acacius to the, 116-19.

Naxararowt’iwnk’ (Feudal Principal-
ities), 66

Neo-Piatonists, 168

Nestorianism : in Syria, 38; in Persia,
38, 72, 150, officially recognized,
16, 162; “taint of” at Chalcedon,
35 - 43 > “strengthened” by Chalce-
don, 21, 54, 210; opposed by
Armenians since Ephesus, 209; de-
fined by Babgen, 200; denounced
by Babgen, 8f, 201 ; rejected at
Dowin, 17; threat to Armenian
Church in sixth century, 208 ;
attitude of Nestorians to Chalcedon,
56-60; their rejection of second
Council of Constantinople, 59;
apparent, in terminology of Leo’s
Tome, 50; distinguished from the
teaching of Nestorius, 39; character-
ized as “Jewish”, 1 1 3 ; use of
Theodore's terminology to in-
fluence Armenians, i89n

Nicaea, Council of, 74, 200, 212

Nicaean Creed, see Creed of Nicaea

Nicaean doctrine, 51, 114, 117, 125,
188, 198, 2 oof, 203f

Parthian Empire, 62

Persian history: Arsacid dynasty re--
placed by Sassanid (226), 63;

oppressive policies in Armenia, 68ff,
149, 152, 172; Mazdaean persecu-
tions in Armenia, 4, 8, 10, mission to
Armenia, 95; Persian influence on
Armenian culture, 63; suppression
of Greek traditions in Armenia,
84f; anti-Byzantine policy, 91;
Christianity in Persian Empire, 16,
72, 159, 207; Monophysite Chris-
tians, 200; growth and acceptance

of Nestorianism, 150, 159, 162;
Nestorian refugees from Byzantine
Empire, 159; troubles in Persian
Church (484-506), 208
Proclus’ Tome, 119-25, 1 3 8fF; con-
sequences for the Armenian Church,
147; textual alterations, 143-6, 232

Reunion Act (433), 36, 222f
Rhandeia, treaty of (a.d. 63), 63
Roman Church, 2, 17!’; insistence on
Chalcedon, 52-5; associated with
Nestorianism, 43 n; defence of Three
Chapters, 54; rejection of Henoticon,
52f

Roman Empire, relations with
Armenia of, 62, 64

Roman legates at Chalcedon, 27, 31-4

Sassanid Empire, 62if
Seal of Faith, 311, 165
Sebastia, the monks of, 81
Separatism, see Nestorianism
Stwmateis, the, 174, 178
Syriac tradition in Armenia, 80-5, 98,
108

Syrian Church, 2, 2i4f
Syro-Jacobites, the, 11

Teaching of St Gregory, see Agat‘-
angelos

Theopaschism, 114, I22n
Theotokos, 36n, 42, 126, 163, 223
Three Chapters controversy, 54f, 59,
103, II2f, 119

Tome of Leo, see Leo’s Tome
Tome of Proclus, see Proclus’ Tome
“Translators”, the, 104, I07f, 129,
168, 170

Trinity, the Holy, 120, 122, 13 1, 175,
179, 203 f

Trisagion, the, Ilf
Vardanank’, the, 7on
Yacaxapatum, see Stromateis

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church"

See other formats